ScholarGate
アシスタント

手法を比較

選択した手法を並べて確認できます。異なる行はハイライト表示されます。

Expert Survey×Ideal Point Estimation×
分野Political SciencePolitical Science
系統Process / pipelineLatent structure
提唱年2004
提唱者Comparative party-positioning research (Castles & Mair; Chapel Hill team)Clinton, Jackman & Rivers (Bayesian formulation); Poole & Rosenthal (spatial tradition)
種類Survey of subject-matter experts to measure latent positionsLatent-variable spatial model of binary choice data
原典Bakker, R., de Vries, C., Edwards, E., Hooghe, L., Jolly, S., Marks, G., Polk, J., Rovny, J., Steenbergen, M., & Vachudova, M. A. (2015). Measuring Party Positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill Expert Survey Trend File, 1999–2010. Party Politics, 21(1), 143–152. DOI ↗Clinton, J., Jackman, S., & Rivers, D. (2004). The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data. American Political Science Review, 98(2), 355–370. DOI ↗
別名Expert judgment survey, Party expert survey, Chapel Hill Expert Survey, Expert placement surveyIdeal point model, Item response theory for roll calls, Spatial voting model, Bayesian ideal points
関連44
概要An expert survey measures latent political quantities — most often parties' positions on policy dimensions — by asking a panel of country and subject-matter experts to place the objects of interest on structured numerical scales. Averaging many experts' judgments yields position estimates, while the spread across experts provides a built-in measure of uncertainty and reliability. The Chapel Hill Expert Survey is the leading example, producing comparable measures of European parties' positions on ideology, European integration, and many specific issues over time.Ideal point estimation recovers the latent policy positions — ideal points — of political actors from their observed binary choices, most often legislators' yea/nay votes on roll calls. Building on the spatial theory of voting and formalized as a Bayesian item-response model by Clinton, Jackman, and Rivers in 2004, it places each legislator and each bill in a low-dimensional policy space and estimates positions so that the probability a legislator votes yea increases as the bill's 'yea' outcome moves closer to that legislator's ideal point.
ScholarGateデータセット
  1. v1
  2. 3 出典
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 3 出典
  3. PUBLISHED

検索へ スライドをダウンロード

ScholarGate手法を比較: Expert Survey · Ideal Point Estimation. 2026-06-24に以下より取得 https://scholargate.app/ja/compare