方法对比

	Event Data Analysis of Conflict	Content Analysis of Treaties
领域	International Relations	International Relations
方法族	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
起源年份	1994	2000
提出者	Philip Schrodt (KEDS/TABARI); ICEWS team (Boschee et al.)	Klaus Krippendorff (content analysis methodology); legalization literature (Abbott et al.)
类型	Automated extraction of structured political events from news text	Systematic coding of the text and design features of international agreements
开创性文献	Schrodt, P. A., Davis, S. G., & Weddle, J. L. (1994). Political science: KEDS — A program for the machine coding of event data. Social Science Computer Review, 12(4), 561–588. See also Gerner, Schrodt et al. (1994), Machine coding of event data using regional and international sources, International Studies Quarterly, 38(1), 91–119.	Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89.
别名	Political Event Data, Machine-Coded Conflict Event Data, Conflict Event Extraction, Who-Did-What-to-Whom Event Coding	Treaty Text Analysis, International Agreement Coding, Treaty Design Content Analysis, Legalization Content Analysis
相关	4	3
摘要	Event data analysis is the automated extraction of structured records of political interactions — who did what to whom, when, and where — from large volumes of news text, for the quantitative study of conflict and cooperation. Pioneered for machine coding by Philip Schrodt with the KEDS and TABARI systems and scaled in projects such as ICEWS and GDELT, it turns unstructured reporting into dated actor-action-target triples coded to an ontology like CAMEO, which can then be aggregated into time series of interstate or intrastate hostility.	Content analysis of treaties is the systematic, rule-governed coding of the text and design features of international agreements — their obligations, precision, delegation, enforcement, flexibility, and substantive provisions — to study how treaties are written and what explains variation in their design. It applies the established content-analysis methodology codified by Krippendorff to the specialized vocabulary of international law and institutions, often organized around frameworks such as the legalization concept of Abbott and colleagues (2000).