Replication Data for: The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why?
<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|> You are a research archivist expert in dataset metadata. Answer the question truthfully.  <|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|> Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'Informal discussion plays a crucial role in democracy, yet much of its value dependson diversity. We describe two models of political discussion. The purposive model holds that people typically select discussants who are knowledgeable and politically similar to them. The incidental model suggests that people talk politics for mostly idiosyncratic reasons, as byproducts of non-political social processes. To adjudicate between these accounts, we draw on a unique, multi-site, panel dataset of whole networks, with information about many social relationships, attitudes, and demographics. This evidence permits a stronger foundation for inferences than more common egocentric methods. We find that incidental processes shape discussion networks much more powerfully than purposive ones. Respondents tended to report discussants with whom they shar' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|> {"Answer" : ["Exponential random graph models","Political discussion","Political homogeneity","Social networks"]} <|eot_id|>
 Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'Informal discussion plays a crucial role in democracy, yet much of its value dependson diversity. We describe two models of political discussion. The purposive model holds that people typically select discussants who are knowledgeable and politically similar to them. The incidental model suggests that people talk politics for mostly idiosyncratic reasons, as byproducts of non-political social processes. To adjudicate between these accounts, we draw on a unique, multi-site, panel dataset of whole networks, with information about many social relationships, attitudes, and demographics. This evidence permits a stronger foundation for inferences than more common egocentric methods. We find that incidental processes shape discussion networks much more powerfully than purposive ones. Respondents tended to report discussants with whom they shar' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.
Informal discussion plays a crucial role in democracy, yet much of its value dependson diversity. We describe two models of political discussion. The purposive model holds that people typically select discussants who are knowledgeable and politically similar to them. The incidental model suggests that people talk politics for mostly idiosyncratic reasons, as byproducts of non-political social processes. To adjudicate between these accounts, we draw on a unique, multi-site, panel dataset of whole networks, with information about many social relationships, attitudes, and demographics. This evidence permits a stronger foundation for inferences than more common egocentric methods. We find that incidental processes shape discussion networks much more powerfully than purposive ones. Respondents tended to report discussants with whom they shar
Exponential random graph models; Political discussion; Political homogeneity; Social networks