Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Methodology diagram.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Example voting network.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Example voting network after keeping only positive weights.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Modularity x Density of the networks for randomly removed edges.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Number of yearly propositions for the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Brazilian Deputies Chamber cumulative members distribution.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Senate cumulative members distribution.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Number of parties over time for both houses.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Table 1.

Network statistics for Brazilian Deputies Chamber before backbone extraction application.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Network statistics for the Senate before backbone extraction application.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Resulting backbone extraction methods and fractions for the Chamber of Deputies.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Resulting backbone extraction methods and fractions for the Senate.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Network statistics for Brazilian Deputies Chamber after the backbone extraction application.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Network statistics for the Senate after the backbone extraction application.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 9.

The resulting networks with colors representing political parties.

a) The raw Brazilian Deputies Chamber network for 2013. b) Brazilian Deputies Chamber network after the backbone extraction. c) The raw Senate network for 2013. d) The Senate network after the backbone extraction. Visualizations created with Gephi.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

A comparison of the number of found communities for the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Comparison of the modularity for parties and communities for the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Comparison of the Surprise for parties and communities for the Chamber of Deputies.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Comparison of the Surprise for parties and communities for the Senate.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

Comparison between the number of communities and the true diversity of communities for the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

The party distribution over communities for 2013.

Colors represent the political spectrum of parties with red being more to the left and blue more to the right.

More »

Fig 15 Expand

Fig 16.

The party distribution over communities for 2016 and 2017.

Colors represent the political spectrum of parties with red being more to the left and blue more to the right.

More »

Fig 16 Expand

Fig 17.

The government x opposition distribution inside communities for 2013.

More »

Fig 17 Expand

Fig 18.

The government x opposition distribution inside communities for 2016.

More »

Fig 18 Expand

Fig 19.

Chamber of Deputies fragmentation rank by year.

More »

Fig 19 Expand

Fig 20.

Senate fragmentation rank by year.

More »

Fig 20 Expand

Fig 21.

Chamber of Deputies isolation rank by year.

More »

Fig 21 Expand

Fig 22.

Senate isolation rank by year.

More »

Fig 22 Expand