Guest  

 
Search: 
Search By: SubjectAbstractAuthorTitleFull-Text

 

Showing 1 through 5 of 262 records.
Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 53 - Next  Jump:
2017 - ICA's 67th Annual Conference Pages: unavailable || Words: unavailable || 
Info
1. Furey, Lauren. "The Aggregation Effect: Does the Type of News Aggregation Personalization Influence Information-Seeking Behavior?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ICA's 67th Annual Conference, Hilton San Diego Bayfront, San Diego, USA, May 25, 2017 Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2019-09-19 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p1231888_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Aggregators are popular outlets for news delivery because of their ability to curate and personalize content. Yet as readers continue to use aggregators — and those aggregators learn more about users and their interests — concerns have developed that aggregators will lead users, especially young adults, to narrow their information-seeking behavior. To test whether these concerns are valid, a 4 (type of aggregator: an aggregator that uses an algorithm to provide personalized news recommendations like Google News, an aggregator that uses on social connections to provide personalized news recommendations like Facebook, an aggregator that uses editors to provide personalized news recommendations like inshorts, and no aggregation) x 2 (type of news: civic affairs or entertainment) experiment was conducted. Results revealed that young adults hold a positive attitude toward popular aggregators like Google News and Facebook, but they did not have a narrowing impact on information-seeking behavior, which dampens concerns of selective exposure.

2007 - International Communication Association Pages: 38 pages || Words: 8791 words || 
Info
2. Burkart, Patrick. and McCourt, Thomas. "Aggregating Audiences for the Celestial Jukebox" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, TBA, San Francisco, CA, May 23, 2007 Online <PDF>. 2019-09-19 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p170469_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper investigates some implications of audience-building activities by the popular music recording industry and its business partners. It offers an historical perspective on the new imperative for audience creation, and considers the recording industry’s present-day market structure, integration strategies, and technology partnerships. It presents an overview of the new digital channels for music distribution emerging around cellular telephony, satellite radio, terrestrial digital radio, podcasting, and social networking Web sites, and evaluates each channel for its potential and actual revenue streams for the major labels. It focuses on the new roles anticipated by the music industry for social networking Web sites, such as MySpace and YouTube, which aggregate audiences around media files and social networks.

2004 - International Studies Association Words: 516 words || 
Info
3. Liu, Xinmin. "Presidentialism and Party Aggregation: A Cross-national Examination of Presidential Elections and Presidential Legisaltive Powers on the Number of Parties" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Le Centre Sheraton Hotel, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Mar 17, 2004 <Not Available>. 2019-09-19 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p73985_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: With the resurgence of democratization in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere since late 1970s, how to craft institutions to sustain democracy has been a primary concern for politicians and scholars (Di Palma 1990; Diamond 1997; Diamond and Gunther 2001; Lijphart and Waisman 1996; Mainwaring and Scully 1995). One of the keen topics is about regime type (parliamentary vs. presidential systems) and democratic continuity. While much of the scholarship blames presidentialism for policy-making gridlocks in the separation-of-power systems, which usually lead to political crises and instabilities in transforming societies (Burns 1963; Cox and Kernell 1991; Edwards et. al 1997; Shugart 1995; Sundquist 1986, 1992; Valenzuela and Linz 1994), some scholars link presidentialism with fragmented party systems, a main cause of democratic breakdowns (Mainwaring 1992-1993). That is, presidentialism's conduciveness to fragmented party systems makes the separation-of-power system more vulnerable than parliamentary systems to political crises in case of policy-making deadlocks. Much of the empirical scholarship of presidentialism and party systems, however, has concentrated on the impact of presidential elections on the number of parties. Basically, presidentialism is thought to help aggregate political parties because of the coattail effects of nationwide presidential campaigns and elections on legislative elections (Miller 1955; Press 1958). More recently, proximity (concurrence) between presidential and legislative elections is found to enhance the coattail effect of presidential elections and thus promote big parties (Cox 1997; Neto and Cox 1997; Mainwaring 1990, 1991, and 1992-1993; Shugart and Carey 1992). Also, plurality presidential election formulas are found to better serve the big parties than majority run-off rules (Jones 1994; Mainwaring and Shugart 1997). However, little empirical analysis has examined the relationship between presidential legislative powers and party systems although evidence has identified the political problems in the legislative processes in the separation-of-power systems. Moreover, case selection in conventional empirical studies is basically limited to advanced democracies and some Latin American countries. This paper thus tries to empirically analyze the relationship between presidentialism and party aggregation more systematically and with a focus on presidential power and party aggregation. First, including all democracies, the systems that have a positive Polity score (Gurr and Jagger 1998; Marshall 2002), in this analysis, this paper will re-evaluate the impact of regime type on the number of parties. Second, including all the presidential systems in both old and emerging democracies, this paper will re-test the relationship between presidential elections and the number of parties. Third and most important, this paper will empirically examine the consequences of presidential legislative powers for party systems, not only analyzing the relationship between levels of presidential legislative power and party aggregation but also providing an in-depth inspection of the impact of specific presidential powers including veto, partial veto, exclusive legislation, budgetary power, decree power, and referenda power on party aggregation. It begins by reviewing theoretical and empirical literature on presidentialism and the number of political parties. Next, it discusses the dataset, research design, and operationalization of variables, including measurement of presidential legislative powers. Last, it presents and analyzes regression results.

2007 - International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention Pages: 55 pages || Words: unavailable || 
Info
4. Mills, Maggie., Hatfield, Clare. and Shellman, Stephen. "Separation & Aggregation: How Our Theoretical & Operational Choices Affect the Inferences We Draw form Civil Conflict Models" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Hilton Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, USA, Feb 28, 2007 <Not Available>. 2019-09-19 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p179112_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Previous research on repression and dissent, civil conflict-cooperation processes, and government-dissident behavior suffers theoretically and empirically from analyzing two-actor models versus multi-actor models of government-dissident interactions. Most of the theoretical literature on this topic examines relationships between a single dissident group and the government. While some of the theoretical literature has begun to take into account multiple dissident groups behavior, systematic empirical evidence supporting or rejecting some of the theories’ predictions is lacking given data constraints and some scholars’ (the authors included) unwillingness to take on the challenge of modeling such multiple group interactions. Most behavioral statistical studies aggregate all government actions directed towards the dissidents together and all dissident actions directed towards the government together to create two directed-dyadic measures of cooperation and/or hostility sent by the government towards the dissidents and sent from the dissidents towards the government. Dissident groups can range from teachers and student groups to tightly organized rebel and/or terrorist groups. Yet, such studies aggregate all their behavior together and assume the government reacts to all groups in the same way and that all dissident groups behave in the same way towards the government. While empirical studies focusing on temporal aggregation of event data show that temporal aggregation matters, no studies to the authors’ knowledge examine whether “actor aggregation” affects the inferences we draw from quantitative studies. This study is the first to address how different dissident groups’ behavior aggregated together can affect the inferences we draw from quantitative studies of government-dissident interactions. To address the current lacunae in the literature, we analyze newly collected data which enable us to disaggregate groups’ behavior and analyze multiple groups’ interactions with the government. We then compare the disaggregated group statistical results to results from the aggregated models of government-dissident interactions within Cambodia (1980-2004) and Indonesia (1980-2004) and demonstrate that we draw different inferences with respect to government-dissident interactions across the models. The results have implications for how we study civil conflict, repression and dissent, and government-dissident conflict-cooperation processes.

Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 53 - Next  Jump:

©2019 All Academic, Inc.   |   All Academic Privacy Policy