Advertisement

Automated Coding of Political Event Data

  • Philip A. SchrodtEmail author
  • David Van Brackle

Abstract

Political event data have long been used in the quantitative study of international politics, dating back to the early efforts of Edward Azar’s COPDAB [1] andCharles McClelland’s WEIS [18] as well as a variety of more specialized efforts such as Leng’s BCOW [16]. By the late 1980s, the NSF-funded Data Development in International Relations project [20] had identified event data as the second most common form of data—behind the various Correlates of War data sets— used in quantitative studies. The 1990s saw the development of two practical automated event data coding systems, the NSF-funded KEDS (http://eventdata. psu.edu; [9, 31, 33]) and the proprietary VRA-Reader (http://vranet.com; [15, 27]) and in the 2000s, the development of two new political event coding ontologies— CAMEO [34] and IDEA[4,27]—designed for implementation in automated coding systems. A summary of the current status of political event projects, as well as detailed discussions of some of these, can be found in [10, 32].

Keywords

Natural Language Processing Event Data Machine Translation Automate Code Human Code 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by contracts from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under the Integrated Crisis Early Warning System (ICEWS) program (Prime Contract #FA8650-07-C-7749: Lockheed-Martin Advance Technology Laboratories) as well as grants from the National Science Foundation (SES-0096086, SES-0455158, SES-0527564, SES-1004414) and by a Fulbright-Hays Research Fellowship for work by Schrodt at the Peace Research Institute, Oslo (http://www.prio.no). The results and findings in no way represent the views of Lockheed-Martin, the Department of Defense, DARPA, or NSF. It has benefitted from extended discussions and experimentation within the ICEWS team and the KEDS research group at the University of Kansas; we would note in particular contributions from Steve Shellman, Hans Leonard, Brandon Stewart, Jennifer Lautenschlager, Andrew Shilliday, Will Lowe, Steve Purpura, Vladimir Petroff, Baris Kesgin and Matthias Heilke.

References

  1. 1.
    Azar EE (1980) The conflict and peace data bank (COPDAB) project. J Confl Resolut 24: 143–152Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azar EE (1982) The codebook of the conflict and peace data bank (COPDAB). Center for International Development, University of Maryland, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azar EE, Sloan T (1975) Dimensions of interaction. University Center for International Studies, University of Pittsburgh, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bond D, Bond J, Oh C, Jenkins JC, Taylor CL (2003) Integrated data for events analysis (IDEA): An event typology for automated events data development. J Peace Res 40(6): 733–745Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bond D, Jenkins JC, Taylor CLT, Schock K (1997) Mapping mass political conflict and civil society: Issues and prospects for the automated development of event data. J Confl Resolut 41(4):553–579Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boschee E, Natarajan P, Weischedel R (2012) Automatic extraction of events from open source text for predictive forecasting. In: Subrahmanian V (ed) Handbook on computational approaches to counterterrorism. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chenoweth E, Dugan L (2012) Rethinking counterterrorism: evidence from israe. Working Paper, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CTGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dugan L, Chenoweth E (2012) Moving beyond deterrence: the effectiveness of raising the expected utility of abstaining from terrorism in israel. Working Paper, University of Maryland, College Park, MDGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gerner DJ, Schrodt PA, Francisco RA, Weddle JL (1994) The machine coding of events from regional and international sources. Int Stud Q 38:91–119Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gleditsch NP (2012) Special issue: event data in the study of conflict. Int Interact 38(4): 375–569Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldstein JS (1992) A conflict-cooperation scale for WEIS events data. J Confl Resolut 36:369–385Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Howell LD (1983) A comparative study of the WEIS and COPDAB data sets. Int Stud Q 27:149–159Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jenkins CJ, Bond D (2001) Conflict carrying capacity, political crisis, and reconstruction. J Confl Resolut 45(1):3–31Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kahneman D (2011) Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    King G, Lowe W (2004) An automated information extraction tool for international conflict data with performance as good as human coders: A rare events evaluation design. Int Organ 57(3):617–642Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leng RJ (1987) Behavioral correlates of war, 1816–1975. (ICPSR 8606). Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McClelland CA (1967) World-event-interaction-survey: a research project on the theory and measurement of international interaction and transaction. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McClelland CA (1976) World event/interaction survey codebook (ICPSR 5211). Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McClelland CA (1983) Let the user beware. Int Stud Q 27(2):169–177Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Merritt RL, Muncaster RG, Zinnes DA (eds) (1993) International event data developments: DDIR phase II. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mikhaylov S, Laver M, Benoit K Coder reliability and misclassification in the human coding of party manifestos. Political Anal 20(1):78–91 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mooney B, Simpson B (2003) Breaking News: How the Wheels Came off at Reuters. Capstone, MankatoGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nardulli P (2011) The social, political and economic event database project (SPEED). http://www.clinecenter.illinois.edu/research/speed.html
  24. 24.
    Nardulli PF, Leetaru KH, Hayes M Event data, civil unrest and the SPEED project (2011). Presented at the International Studies Association Meetings, MontréalGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Brien S (2012) A multi-method approach for near real time conflict and crisis early warning. In: Subrahmanian V (ed) Handbook on computational approaches to counterterrorism. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    O’Brien SP (2010) Crisis early warning and decision support: contemporary approaches and thoughts on future research. Int Stud Rev 12(1):87–104Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Petroff V, Bond J, Bond D (2012) Using hidden Markov models to predict terror before it hits (again). In: Subrahmanian V (ed) Handbook on computational approaches to counterterrorism. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ruggeri A, Gizelis TI, Dorussen H (2011) Events data as bismarck’s sausages? intercoder reliability, coders’ selection, and data quality. Int Interact 37(1):340–361Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Russett BM, Singer JD, Small M (1968) National political units in the twentieth century: a standardized list. Am Political Sci Rev 62(3):932–951Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schrodt PA (1994) Statistical characteristics of events data. Int Interact 20(1–2):35–53Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schrodt PA (2006) Twenty years of the Kansas event data system project. Political Methodol 14(1):2–8Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schrodt PA (2012) Precedents, progress and prospects in political event data. Int Interact 38(5):546–569Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schrodt PA, Gerner DJ (1994) Validity assessment of a machine-coded event data set for the Middle East, 1982–1992. Am J Political Sci 38:825–854Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schrodt PA, Gerner DJ, Yilmaz Ö (2009) Conflict and mediation event observations (CAMEO): an event data framework for a post Cold War world. In: Bercovitch J, Gartner S (eds) International conflict mediation: new approaches and findings. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schrodt PA, Palmer G, Hatipoglu ME (2008) Automated detection of reports of militarized interstate disputes using the SVM document classification algorithm. Paper presented at American Political Science Association, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shilliday A, Lautenschlager J (2012) Data for a global icews and ongoing research. In: 2nd international conference on cross-cultural decision making: focus 2012, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tetlock PE (2005) Expert political judgment: how good is it? how can we know? Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Van Brackle D, Wedgwood J (2011) Event coding for hscb modeling: challenges and approaches. In: Human social culture behavior modeling focus 2011, Chantilly, VAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political SciencePennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Laboratories, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology LaboratoriesKennesawUSA

Personalised recommendations