ArticlePloS one2016
Cohesion and Coalition Formation in the European Parliament: Roll-Call Votes and Twitter Activities.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complex networks applied to political analysis: Group voting behavior in the Brazilian congress.PloS one · 2025Article
- Retweet communities reveal the main sources of hate speech.PloS one · 2022Article
- Role-Aware Information Spread in Online Social Networks.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Ratioing the President: An exploration of public engagement with Obama and Trump on Twitter.PloS one · 2021Article
- Community evolution in retweet networks.PloS one · 2021Article
- Evolution of topics and hate speech in retweet network communities.Applied network science · 2021Article
- A complex network approach to political analysis: Application to the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.PloS one · 2020Article
- The Twitter parliamentarian database: Analyzing Twitter politics across 26 countries.PloS one · 2020Article
- Variations in power of opinion leaders in online communication networks.Royal Society open science · 2018Article
- Profiling the EU lobby organizations in Banking and Finance.Applied network science · 2018Article
- Stance and influence of Twitter users regarding the Brexit referendum.Computational social networks · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We study the cohesion within and the coalitions between political groups in the Eighth European Parliament (2014-2019) by analyzing two entirely different aspects of the behavior of the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in the policy-making processes. On one hand, we analyze their co-voting patterns and, on the other, their retweeting behavior. We make use of two diverse datasets in the analysis. The first one is the roll-call vote dataset, where cohesion is regarded as the tendency to co-vote within a group, and a coalition is formed when the members of several groups exhibit a high degree of co-voting agreement on a subject. The second dataset comes from Twitter; it captures the retweeting (i.e., endorsing) behavior of the MEPs and implies cohesion (retweets within the same group) and coalitions (retweets between groups) from a completely different perspective. We employ two different methodologies to analyze the cohesion and coalitions. The first one is based on Krippendorff's Alpha reliability, used to measure the agreement between raters in data-analysis scenarios, and the second one is based on Exponential Random Graph Models, often used in social-network analysis. We give general insights into the cohesion of political groups in the European Parliament, explore whether coalitions are formed in the same way for different policy areas, and examine to what degree the retweeting behavior of MEPs corresponds to their co-voting patterns. A novel and interesting aspect of our work is the relationship between the co-voting and retweeting patterns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.