1 resultado para Make to availability
em Nottingham eTheses
Filtro por publicador
- JISC Information Environment Repository (1)
- Academic Archive On-line (Stockholm University; Sweden) (1)
- Acceda, el repositorio institucional de la Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. España (1)
- Adam Mickiewicz University Repository (1)
- AMS Tesi di Dottorato - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (3)
- AMS Tesi di Laurea - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (2)
- Archive of European Integration (11)
- Aston University Research Archive (21)
- Avian Conservation and Ecology - Eletronic Cientific Hournal - Écologie et conservation des oiseaux: (1)
- Biblioteca de Teses e Dissertações da USP (1)
- Biblioteca Digital | Sistema Integrado de Documentación | UNCuyo - UNCUYO. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE CUYO. (1)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (9)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (BDPI/USP) (54)
- Biblioteca Virtual del Sistema Sanitario Público de Andalucía (BV-SSPA), Junta de Andalucía. Consejería de Salud y Bienestar Social, Spain (4)
- BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça (40)
- Brock University, Canada (9)
- Bucknell University Digital Commons - Pensilvania - USA (1)
- Bulgarian Digital Mathematics Library at IMI-BAS (1)
- CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK (27)
- Cochin University of Science & Technology (CUSAT), India (1)
- Comissão Econômica para a América Latina e o Caribe (CEPAL) (10)
- Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya (CSUC), Spain (39)
- Cor-Ciencia - Acuerdo de Bibliotecas Universitarias de Córdoba (ABUC), Argentina (1)
- Corvinus Research Archive - The institutional repository for the Corvinus University of Budapest (1)
- Dalarna University College Electronic Archive (3)
- Digital Archives@Colby (1)
- Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (2)
- Digital Commons @ DU | University of Denver Research (2)
- Digital Commons at Florida International University (16)
- Digital Peer Publishing (3)
- DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center (5)
- DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln (1)
- Doria (National Library of Finland DSpace Services) - National Library of Finland, Finland (24)
- DRUM (Digital Repository at the University of Maryland) (2)
- eResearch Archive - Queensland Department of Agriculture; Fisheries and Forestry (1)
- Georgian Library Association, Georgia (1)
- Glasgow Theses Service (1)
- Harvard University (4)
- Institute of Public Health in Ireland, Ireland (37)
- Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Portugal (34)
- Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada - Lisboa (1)
- Iowa Publications Online (IPO) - State Library, State of Iowa (Iowa), United States (10)
- Memorial University Research Repository (2)
- Ministerio de Cultura, Spain (4)
- National Center for Biotechnology Information - NCBI (5)
- Nottingham eTheses (1)
- Portal do Conhecimento - Ministerio do Ensino Superior Ciencia e Inovacao, Cape Verde (4)
- Publishing Network for Geoscientific & Environmental Data (8)
- QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast (3)
- RDBU - Repositório Digital da Biblioteca da Unisinos (1)
- Repositório Científico do Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa - Portugal (20)
- Repositório da Produção Científica e Intelectual da Unicamp (6)
- Repositório da Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo (UFES), Brazil (1)
- Repositório digital da Fundação Getúlio Vargas - FGV (4)
- Repositório do Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, EPE - Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, EPE, Portugal (4)
- Repositório Institucional UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho" (21)
- Research Open Access Repository of the University of East London. (1)
- RUN (Repositório da Universidade Nova de Lisboa) - FCT (Faculdade de Cienecias e Technologia), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL), Portugal (47)
- Scielo Saúde Pública - SP (71)
- Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE) (SIRE), United Kingdom (8)
- South Carolina State Documents Depository (2)
- Universidad de Alicante (3)
- Universidad del Rosario, Colombia (2)
- Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (6)
- Universidade do Minho (16)
- Universidade dos Açores - Portugal (3)
- Universidade Federal do Pará (2)
- Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) (3)
- Universitat de Girona, Spain (1)
- Universitätsbibliothek Kassel, Universität Kassel, Germany (3)
- Université de Lausanne, Switzerland (93)
- Université de Montréal, Canada (2)
- Université Laval Mémoires et thèses électroniques (1)
- University of Canberra Research Repository - Australia (2)
- University of Michigan (109)
- University of Queensland eSpace - Australia (73)
- University of Southampton, United Kingdom (7)
- Worcester Research and Publications - Worcester Research and Publications - UK (1)
Resumo:
The inclusion of non-ipsative measures of party preference (in essence ratings for each of the parties of a political system) has become established practice in mass surveys conducted for election studies. They exist in different forms, known as thermometer ratings or feeling scores, likes and dislikes scores, or support propensities. Usually only one of these is included in a single survey, which makes it difficult to assess the relative merits of each. The questionnaire of the Irish National Election Study 2002 (INES2002) contained three different batteries of non-ipsative party preferences. This paper investigates some of the properties of these different indicators. We focus in particular on two phenomena. First, the relationship between non-ipsative preferences and the choices actually made on the ballot. In Ireland this relationship is more revealing than in most other countries owing to the electoral system (STV) which allows voters to cast multiple ordered votes for candidates from different parties. Second, we investigate the latent structure of each of the batteries of party preferences and the relationships between them. We conclude that the three instruments are not interchangeable, that they measure different orientations, and that one –the propensity to vote for a party– is by far preferable if the purpose of the study is the explanation of voters’ actual choice behaviour. This finding has important ramifications for the design of election study questionnaires.