Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (386) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2024 (1)
- 2023 (12)
- 2022 (16)
- 2021 (12)
- 2020 (16)
- 2019 (30)
- 2018 (24)
- 2017 (41)
- 2016 (22)
- 2015 (10)
- 2014 (18)
- 2013 (15)
- 2012 (10)
- 2011 (13)
- 2010 (4)
- 2009 (11)
- 2008 (6)
- 2007 (6)
- 2006 (9)
- 2005 (12)
- 2004 (18)
- 2003 (7)
- 2002 (2)
- 2001 (7)
- 2000 (9)
- 1999 (9)
- 1998 (10)
- 1997 (5)
- 1996 (9)
- 1995 (11)
- 1994 (8)
- 1993 (1)
Document Type
- Article (274)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (29)
- Review (26)
- Doctoral Thesis (24)
- Part of a Book (20)
- Other (10)
- Preprint (3)
Language
- English (386) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (386)
Keywords
- Germany (6)
- globalization (6)
- international organizations (6)
- European Union (5)
- accountability (4)
- capitalism (4)
- climate policy (4)
- democracy (4)
- financial crisis (4)
- financial institutions (4)
Institute
- Sozialwissenschaften (386) (remove)
“Broadcast your gender.”
(2022)
Social media platforms provide a large array of behavioral data relevant to social scientific research. However, key information such as sociodemographic characteristics of agents are often missing. This paper aims to compare four methods of classifying social attributes from text. Specifically, we are interested in estimating the gender of German social media creators. By using the example of a random sample of 200 YouTube channels, we compare several classification methods, namely (1) a survey among university staff, (2) a name dictionary method with the World Gender Name Dictionary as a reference list, (3) an algorithmic approach using the website gender-api.com, and (4) a Multinomial Naïve Bayes (MNB) machine learning technique. These different methods identify gender attributes based on YouTube channel names and descriptions in German but are adaptable to other languages. Our contribution will evaluate the share of identifiable channels, accuracy and meaningfulness of classification, as well as limits and benefits of each approach. We aim to address methodological challenges connected to classifying gender attributes for YouTube channels as well as related to reinforcing stereotypes and ethical implications.
Why choice matters
(2018)
Measures of democracy are in high demand. Scientific and public audiences use them to describe political realities and to substantiate causal claims about those realities. This introduction to the thematic issue reviews the history of democracy measurement since the 1950s. It identifies four development phases of the field, which are characterized by three recurrent topics of debate: (1) what is democracy, (2) what is a good measure of democracy, and (3) do our measurements of democracy register real-world developments? As the answers to those questions have been changing over time, the field of democracy measurement has adapted and reached higher levels of theoretical and methodological sophistication. In effect, the challenges facing contemporary social scientists are not only limited to the challenge of constructing a sound index of democracy. Today, they also need a profound understanding of the differences between various measures of democracy and their implications for empirical applications. The introduction outlines how the contributions to this thematic issue help scholars cope with the recurrent issues of conceptualization, measurement, and application, and concludes by identifying avenues for future research.
Previous research has documented only a modest success rate for imposed sanctions. By contrast, the success rate is higher in cases that are settled at the threat stage. In this article, the authors provide new insights about the circumstances under which sanctions cause behavioral change only after being imposed. First, the target must initially underestimate the impact of sanctions, miscalculate the sender's determination to impose them, or wrongly believe that sanctions will be imposed and maintained whether it yields or not. Second, the target's misperceptions must be corrected after sanctions are imposed. A game-theoretical model with incomplete information is used to develop and clarify the argument
When are international organizations (IOs) responsive to the policy problems that motivated their establishment? While it is a conventional assumption that IOs exist to address transnational challenges, the question of whether and when IO policy-making is responsive to shifts in underlying problems has not been systematically explored. This study investigates the responsiveness of IOs from a large-n, comparative approach. Theoretically, we develop three alternative models of IO responsiveness, emphasizing severeness, dependence, and power differentials. Empirically, we focus on the domain of security, examining the responsiveness of eight multi-issue IOs to armed conflict between 1980 and 2015, using a novel and expansive dataset on IO policy decisions. Our findings suggest, first, that IOs are responsive to security problems and, second, that responsiveness is not primarily driven by dependence or power differentials but by problem severity. An in-depth study of the responsiveness of the UN Security Council using more granular data confirms these findings. As the first comparative study of whether and when IO policy adapts to problem severity, the article has implications for debates about IO responsiveness, performance, and legitimacy.