{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013250883392226149, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0017667844522968198, 'mean_word_length': 5.511494252873563, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Measurement validation: lessons from the use and misuse of UN General Assembly roll-call votes

An oft-claimed advantage of scientific studies of international politics is the intersubjectivity of such inquiries. Although the ultimate promise of scientific knowledge is the understanding it imparts to patterns of association among classes of events, much contemporary research falls considerably short of this goal. As a result, the principal, immediate value of such research lies in its adherence to scientific practices that ensure that findings are not wholly dependent on the methods of measurement and analysis adopted by a particular researcher. More than a decade ago James Caporaso demonstrated the utility of measurement validation as a specific application of the general scientific mandate that inquiry be intersubjective. 1 Yet despite widespread positive reaction to Caporaso's examination of alternative measures of the concept “integration,” his study stands out as a rare example of the type of systematic investigation of measurement validity that must be undertaken in order to fulfill this scientific mandate. 2