ScholarGate
助手

方法对比

并排查看您选择的方法;存在差异的行会高亮显示。

Expert Survey×Ideal Point Estimation×
领域Political SciencePolitical Science
方法族Process / pipelineLatent structure
起源年份2004
提出者Comparative party-positioning research (Castles & Mair; Chapel Hill team)Clinton, Jackman & Rivers (Bayesian formulation); Poole & Rosenthal (spatial tradition)
类型Survey of subject-matter experts to measure latent positionsLatent-variable spatial model of binary choice data
开创性文献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 ↗
别名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
相关44
摘要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数据集
  1. v1
  2. 3 来源
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 3 来源
  3. PUBLISHED

前往搜索 下载幻灯片

ScholarGate方法对比: Expert Survey · Ideal Point Estimation. 于 2026-06-25 检索自 https://scholargate.app/zh/compare