Source author record

Bruce A. Desmarais

Bruce A. Desmarais appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

6works
7topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Generative Dynamics of Supreme Court Citations: Analysis with a New Statistical Network Model

The significance and influence of US Supreme Court majority opinions derive in large part from opinions' roles as precedents for future opinions. A growing body of literature seeks to understand what drives the use of opinions as precedents through the study of Supreme Court case citation patterns. We raise two limitations of existing work on Supreme Court citations. First, dyadic citations are typically aggregated to the case level before they are analyzed. Second, citations are treated as if they arise independently. We present a methodology for studying citations between Supreme Court opinions at the dyadic level, as a network, that overcomes these limitations. This methodology -- the citation exponential random graph model, for which we provide user-friendly software -- enables researchers to account for the effects of case characteristics and complex forms of network dependence in citation formation. We then analyze a network that includes all Supreme Court cases decided between 1950 and 2015. We find evidence for dependence processes, including reciprocity, transitivity, and popularity. The dependence effects are as substantively and statistically significant as the effects of exogenous covariates, indicating that models of Supreme Court citation should incorporate both the effects of case characteristics and the structure of past citations.

preprint2016arXiv

What can we Learn from Predictive Modeling?

The large majority of inferences drawn in empirical political research follow from model-based associations (e.g. regression). Here, we articulate the benefits of predictive modeling as a complement to this approach. Predictive models aim to specify a probabilistic model that provides a good fit to testing data that were not used to estimate the model's parameters. Our goals are threefold. First, we review the central benefits of this under-utilized approach from a perspective uncommon in the existing literature: we focus on how predictive modeling can be used to complement and augment standard associational analyses. Second, we advance the state of the literature by laying out a simple set of benchmark predictive criteria. Third, we illustrate our approach through a detailed application to the prediction of interstate conflict.

preprint2015arXiv

A Critique of Dyadic Design

Dyadic research designs concern data that comprises interactions among actors. Dyadic approaches unambiguously constitute the most frequent designs employed in the empirical study of international politics, but what do such designs cary with them in terms of theoretical claims and statistical problems? These two issues are closely intertwined. When testing hypotheses empirically, the statistical model must be a careful operationalization of the theory being tested. Given that the theoretical and statistical cannot be separated, we discuss dyadic research designs from these two perspectives; highlighting model misspecification, erroneous assumptions about independence of events, artificial levels of analysis, and the incoherent treatment of multilateral/multiparty events on the theoretical side and difficult-to-escape challenges to valid inference on the statistical side.

preprint2015arXiv

Science Use in Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Effects of Political Attention and Controversy

Scholars, policymakers, and research sponsors have long sought to understand the conditions under which scientific research is used in the policymaking process. Recent research has identified a resource that can be used to trace the use of science across time and many policy domains. US federal agencies are mandated by executive order to justify all economically significant regulations by regulatory impact analyses (RIAs), in which they present evidence of the scientific underpinnings and consequences of the proposed rule. To gain new insight into when and how regulators invoke science in their policy justifications, we ask: does the political attention and controversy surrounding a regulation affect the extent to which science is utilized in RIAs? We examine scientific citation activity in all 101 economically significant RIAs from 2008-2012 and evaluate the effects of attention -- from the public, policy elites and the media -- on the degree of science use in RIAs. Our main finding is that regulators draw more heavily on scientific research when justifying rules subject to a high degree of attention from outside actors. These findings suggest that scientific research plays an important role in the justification of regulations, especially those that are highly salient to the public and other policy actors.

preprint2015arXiv

The Role of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in the Congressional Cosponsorship Network

Previous research indicates that race, ethnicity, and gender influence legislative behavior in important ways. The bulk of this research, however, focuses on the way these characteristics shape an individual legislator's behavior, making it less clear how they account for relationships between legislators. We study the cosponsorship process in order to understand the race and gender based dynamics underlying the relational component of representation. Using a temporal exponential random graph model, we examine the U.S. House cosponsorship network from 1981 through 2004. We find that Black and Latino members of Congress are at a comparative disadvantage as a result of race-based assortative mixing in the cosponsorship process, yet this disadvantage is mitigated by the electoral pressures that all members face. Members representing districts with significant racial and ethnic minority populations are more likely to support their minority colleagues. We also find that women members do not appear to face a similar disadvantage as a result of their minority status. We argue that these race and gender dynamics in the cosponsorship network are the result of both the inherent tendency towards intra-group homophily in social networks and the electoral connection, which is manifested here as members supporting minority colleagues to broaden their own electoral base of support among minority constituencies.

preprint2011arXiv

Statistical Inference for Valued-Edge Networks: Generalized Exponential Random Graph Models

Across the sciences, the statistical analysis of networks is central to the production of knowledge on relational phenomena. Because of their ability to model the structural generation of networks, exponential random graph models are a ubiquitous means of analysis. However, they are limited by an inability to model networks with valued edges. We solve this problem by introducing a class of generalized exponential random graph models capable of modeling networks whose edges are valued, thus greatly expanding the scope of networks applied researchers can subject to statistical analysis.