Slashdot Mirror
Tracking the Congressional Attention Span
Turismo writes "Ars Technica covers a new research project that uses computers to look at 70 million words from the Congressional Record. The project's goal was to track what our representatives were talking about at any given time, and researchers were able to do it without human training or intervention. From the article: '...researchers found, for instance, that "judicial nominations" have consumed steadily more Congressional attention between 1997 and 2004. In fact, the topic produced the most number of words published in a single "day" of the Congressional Record: 230,000 on November 12, 2003.' It looks like automated topic analysis has truly arrived."
"It looks like automated topic analysis has truly arrived."
+ topic+analysis%22&btnG=Google+Search
Not according to my in-depth research. Looks like "automated topic analysis" isn't arriving at all.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22automated
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
If Pro is the opposite of Con.... what'd Congress mean?
Just playing around with some silly words... do we need to analyse what Congressmen speak, to understand their intent or motivations? Following the money would be a better option.. and we'll find a Very High Attention Span for words like money, dollars and Big Bucks..
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Think about it: "Who thinks we should elect Joe Six-Pack"
Lots of talk, chit-chat, chatter, etc...
"Okay, now who would want to oppose the True American, Patriot, Love, Peace Act*"
Cricket! Cricket!
*And of course this Act happens to have about thirty-thousand ridders attached to it...
So what scored the lowest? Individual freedoms? Constitutional Rights? Fair use?
Are there really that many speeches? TheyWorkForYou.com offer a similar service for the UK's Houses of Parliament, except it's done manually, and there's only a dozen volunteers working on it.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
The conclusion. Congress has ADD, just like me.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Does it take really a sophisticated tool to count the number of times "judicial" and "nominations" appearing in the same sentence?
May be the submitter forgot to cite a little bit more impressive examples?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Great. Now we know what congress has been talking about.
Big deal.
Wake me up when you can tell me what in the hell they were thinking.
--MarkusQ
P.S. Other than how to make sure that they--and Joe Lieberman--get re-elected I mean.
That disease that has so infected business - talking about process (how) rather than products (what) - is readily apparent in Congress as well. I added up the percentages of the "Procedural [HouseKeeping]" categories (egads, there were 6 different line items - not sure what the distinctions were), and it was 50%!!! So, for half the time Congress is talking about *how* they are going to talk about things. Ugggh. I suppose, as one who believes that the less the government does, the better, I should be happy. But oh, the global warming from all that hot air!
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
The congressional record is a false document of what happened in congress. Watch C-Span one day and hear each person request "Unamious support to change or extend". This allows 30 second comment say to begainst the bill to become a 2 hr speech to supporting the bill WITHOUT editing marks.
This program may count time on paper but can not count time that congress is actually spending.
The record isn't actually way they talked about...
...it's what they want you to THINK they talked about.
0 6/05/31/myths_and_lies_on_the_record
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/20
30 years ago, I learned in my high school civics class that any Senator or Representative can insert anything he or she wants into it at any time. Examples that were pointed out to us were speeches on the floor of the Senate that were never made, modifications to committee meetings, etc. The CR is by no means an accurate measure of anything. Except maybe the size of their combined egos.
So in web2.0 terms, this is Google Zeitgeist meets the Statistically Improbable Phrase analysis like you see on Amazon. Find pairs or sets of words which are out of the statistical norm for English, then start to track their rise and fall among the "marketplace of ideas" in Congress. Also, on the c|net news site, they have two graph views to visualize connections between similar-topic stories or often-viewed "hot" stories.
It would be interesting to see how many phrases are just a matter of the odd language that Congress uses. There's a stock metaphorical phrase for just about anything, and there are also a lot of phrases that are steeped in tradition which often get misunderstood by layfolk.
[
They know, don't they, that a representative can have arbitrary text inserted in CR as if it had been read?
Also, if you watch CSPAN while Congress is in session, in the evenings you'll see long stretches with just a few people who are delivering their rants into a nearly empty room. Can that be separated from the rest of the text?
Any sources to back up that statement?
You might also be interested in another topic model that not only automatically discovers topics, but also automatically discovers topic-specific groupings of the senators by their votes. http://www.cs.umass.edu/~mccallum/papers/grouptopi c_linkkdd05.pdf "Group and Topic Discovery from Relations and Text."
It uses not only word data (from the text of 16 years worth of bills voted on in the U.S. Senate), but also the senator's voting records.
For example, you can see that Sen. Chafee (R-RI) (who was mentioned on this morning's NPR as a "liberal Republican") actually does fall into a cluster of Democrats, not fellow Republicans. When automatically discovering topics using word data alone (without the votes, as does the wustl.edu paper above) the topics on this Senate data are reasonably coherent, but the topics created by this "Group-Topic" new model are even more interesting because their discovery is driven by the need to predict the votes as well as the words. For example, "Social Security" doesn't appear in the old model, but pops out clearly in the new model because it has such a distinct voting pattern.
Some of the other results are also pretty interesting---on Education and Domestic policy the Republicans are more split than the Democrats (forming 3 groups, to the Democrats 1 group). On other topics, the split is the other way around.
Using the same technique, there is also an analysis of 60 years worth of voting records from the U.N. On the topic of "human rights", Nicaragua, Papua, Rwanda, Swaziland and Fiji all get clustered together---ouch!
If you want more proof, read this article by John Stossel, which takes a look at what the "Congressional Record" is really all about. Or like parent says, watch CSPAN.
I just finished reading John Stossel's new book (quite good, though not as good as his first). He has a section in it about the Congressional Record.
If you think the Congressional Record is an accurate account of what happens in Congress you are dead wrong. Congressmen use taxpayer dollars to manipulate the Record because there is nothing that says they can't. They insert bogus info, like "Congressman Bob Blowhard addressed the House with a commendation for the 4-H Club of Woohah, Oklahoma". Which never really happened but it makes Senator Blowhard look good with his constituents. They also change the words of what they really said on the floor to make themselves sound better.
Here is a blog post mentioning the problem Stossel brings up and a small excerpt
Carl
Vote Libertarian
which orifice they were talking out of?