Search By: SubjectAbstractAuthorTitleFull-Text


Showing 1 through 5 of 866 records.
Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 174 - Next  Jump:
2009 - 4S Annual Meeting - Abstract and Session Submissions Words: 341 words || 
1. Buswell, Evan. "Truth and Command in the Language of Code: (code := meaning) == (code := action)?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 4S Annual Meeting - Abstract and Session Submissions, Hyatt Regency Crystal City, Crystal City, VA, <Not Available>. 2020-02-22 <>
Publication Type: Abstract
Abstract: In our globalized world, computers have become an essential component in systems of control. They were developed with warfare in mind, later formed one of the pillars of the military architecture framework, C4ISTAR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance), and now are brought to the foreground with Network-Centric Warfare. In the civil sphere, the media has been teeming with stories of computer surveillance—from Facebook terms of use, to the FBI’s “Carnivore” service-provider dragnet. In short, we have heard to what extent code is capable of control—but how receives little attention. Code is most often presented as a reified object, a static technological artifact that is, in itself, neutral. This neutrality prevents us from analyzing the politics of code itself, and encourages the perception of the internet as essentially a free place, only accidentally about control. I offer a model of code based on linguistic and semiotic theory that concentrates on how code gains its status as code, and explains its aspect of control.

As I argue, every utterance of code must simultaneously be correct, i.e. have a truth value, and act in the world, i.e. command. Code acquires its code-like character only through the superposition of two modes of meaning: the declarative and the imperative. But these two modes can only be fused together by the construction of a unitary subject that enacts that imperative. That is, the imperative and declarative only cohere together when the effect of the imperative is always and everywhere the same, when command becomes control. Even in the case of information—rather than executable code—an actor, an imperative, is required. Information only becomes information when it is referred to systems of control. However, because of the dual nature of code as declarative and imperative, information is able to hide its aspect of control. One half of this equation covers the other, and systems of control appear, in the guise of information, as systems of apolitical facts.

2006 - American Political Science Association Pages: 42 pages || Words: 11943 words || 
2. Shaw, Emily. "(De)coding Content: Emergent Code Identification in Content Analysis" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 31, 2006 <Not Available>. 2020-02-22 <>
Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: Political science scholars from a range of subfields, including media effects, foreign policy analysis, campaigns (especially campaign rhetoric), political ideologies, political culture, and gender, find the analysis of text to be a useful method. Their interest has caused the number of published political science articles making reference to “content analysis” or “discourse analysis” to climb recently, with cites for this method increasingly particularly in the last ten years.1 Although several well-regarded books exist to instruct new analysts in the methods of content analysis (Krippendorff 2002, Neuendorf 2002, Weber 1990) and discourse analysis (Fairclough 2003, Schriffrin et al 2003), the range of practices visible in these publications demonstrates a great deal of vagueness in scholarly understanding of what practices constitute which method. A set of assumptions have come to operate in lieu of more formal boundaries: “discourse analysis” and “content analysis,” in the methodological literature, have come to represent opposite sides of the qualitative/quantitative divide. In making this distinction, “discourse analysis” becomes ‘the’ qualitative method, while “content analysis” denotes a purely quantitative approach to words, to the extent that content analysis is dismissed by some text analysts as a near-aphasic exercise in word-counting.
The problem with packing content analysis off to the “quantity” camp is that a critical element of content analysis is likely to go ignored. The perspective which views content analysis as a purely quantitative method fails to recognize the degree to which interpretation of texts underlies the development of a coding scheme – a fundamental process in the performance of the method. In order to know what to observe, the analyst must know her texts, identify and consider the universe of potentially relevant concepts, and develop or adopt an appropriate coding scheme. The development of a coding scheme, though sometimes theoretically informed, is always to some degree an emergent, or inductive, process which depends on the scholar’s familiarity with the text. Coding scheme development can thus be considered an analogue to the qualitative process of concept formation. However, though concept formation is critical to the outcome of all quantitative analyses, the process of coding scheme development is often even more in need of discussion, because it to date remains undertheorized.
After examining the way in which the qualitative aspects of content analysis have been inappropriately obscured in current discussions of the method, I will discuss issues in the development of coding schemes for content analysis. My discussion produces a number of propositions about the significance of researcher choices in coding schemes for study outcomes. Through reviewing a set of recent and influential articles which use content analysis as a primary methodology, I will examine the extent to which current content-analytic practices offer these propositions preliminary support. The significance of this researcher-driven, “qualitative” aspect of content analysis then becomes apparent in the number of ways it affects aspects of study outcomes.

2010 - ISME World Conference and Commission Seminars Words: 231 words || 
3. Moser, Pete. "Code of Practice for Music Practitioners: A Practical Investigation of the UK National Code" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISME World Conference and Commission Seminars, China Conservatory of Music (CC) and Chinese National Convention Centre (CNCC), Beijing, China, Aug 01, 2010 <Not Available>. 2020-02-22 <>
Publication Type: Workshop/Demonstration
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The Music Manifesto started the process of bringing together the music education world in the UK. This has involved every sector from the formal music services to the many community music organizations, from the Musicians Union to Sound Sense, from the conservatoires to the opera company education departments and from individuals to massive national organizations.
One of the initiatives was to create a Code of Practice for the profession that would link everyone in a common set of values and methodology of practice. Created in 2005 and then revised through consultation across the music education sector in process led by the national Musicleader network and leading educator Peter Moser who led a coordinated attempt to simplify the language of the Code and has also created a daylong workshop that investigates the essence of the code. This has toured across the UK and the extensive evaluation has shown that it is relevant to musicians working in all areas of activity. In this practical workshop, discussion will address the 6 areas of the Code of Practice and show its relevancy and effect on practice for both novice and more experienced music educators. The 6 key areas of the code are: 1. Be well prepared and organized; 2. be safe and responsible; 3. have appropriate musical skills; 4. work well with people; 5. evaluate and reflect on my work; and 6. commit to professional development.

2008 - ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES Pages: 25 pages || Words: 9587 words || 
4. Schrodt, Phillip. and Yilmaz, Omur. "Coding Sub-State Actors using the CAMEO (Conflict and Mediation Event Observations) Actor Coding Framework" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2020-02-22 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Event data were originally developed in the 1960s to code interstate actors, although even the early system such as WEIS and COPDAB included a small number of non-state actors such as the UN, IRA, and PLO. With the decline of interstate conflict and the increase in the importance of a variety of non-state and sub-state actors in global behavior, there is increasing interest in applying event data coding methods to the analysis of the activities of these actors. Because almost all contemporary conflicts transcend the traditional focus on state actors, featuring instead significant involvement of both sub-state and non-state actors, the state-centered coding schemes used in older data sets such as WEIS and COPDAB have proven inadequate for coding current events. In their place, we have established a systematic method of hierarchically creating codes that allow for the identification of states, sub-state actors, ethnic groups, geographical regions, IGOs and NGOs. This system has proven sufficient to code a wide range of relevant actors involved in inter- and intra-state protracted conflicts in Africa, the Balkans, Central Asia and the Middle East.
Supporting Publications:
Supporting Document

2017 - AEJMC Pages: unavailable || Words: 7668 words || 
5. Weber, Matthew., Kosterich, Allie. and Tikyani, Rohit. "Coding the News: The Role of Computer Code in the Distribution of News Media" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AEJMC, Chicago Marriott Downtown Magnificent Mile, Chicago, IL, Aug 09, 2017 Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2020-02-22 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This article examines the role of code in the process of news distribution, and interrogates the degree to which code and algorithms are imbued with the ability to make decisions regarding the filtering and prioritizing of news, much as an editor would. Emphasis is placed specifically on the context of mobile news applications that filter news for consumers. In addressing calls to attend to the intersection of computer science and journalism, an additional goal of this article is to move the analytic lens away from the notion that code is replacing humans as producers of news and to shift towards an understanding of how code orders and communicates the news. Thus, the focus of this research is on algorithms as technological actants, filtering news based on decisions imbued into the code by human actors. An investigation of code contained in 64 open source mobile news apps is presented and the content of the code is analyzed. Findings highlight the journalistic decisions made in code and contribute to discussion surrounding the relationship between algorithmic and traditional news values.

Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 174 - Next  Jump:

©2020 All Academic, Inc.   |   All Academic Privacy Policy