Kevin Boxer Moran
Not yet computed for this member.
The alignment pipeline has not produced a score here. That is usually because this member never spoke in a debate section that went to a division with an attributable question — see the coverage table below.
Valence runs −1 (negative) to +1 (positive). This is a separate measure from alignment above and says nothing about how anyone voted — "the Minister has been asleep at the wheel" is strongly negative and carries no position on the question.
| Model | Speeches scored | Mean valence | Corpus mean |
|---|---|---|---|
| vader | 156 | +0.553 | +0.423 |
Mean tone by topic, most negative first. Topics come from an LDA model fitted over debate contributions; the terms are the model's, the labels are hand-assigned.
| Topic | Speeches | Mean valence |
|---|---|---|
| Local government, roads and regional funding county · cork · discuss · west · road · local | 9 | +0.601 |
| Procedural and rhetorical filler (low-content) important · like · good · debate · did · does | 12 | +0.681 |
| Departmental programmes and funding (diffuse) department · national · funding · new · important · programme | 18 | +0.738 |
Contributions whose tone sits more than two standard deviations from this member's own average. Baselines are per member on purpose — an absolute threshold would just rank people by temperament.
The Deputy comes in here and gives out the whole time, but he rarely engages in a proper manner to try to constructively deliver this for the people of the community. He comes in and says, "This is delayed. That is delayed." We have to work together for the be…
Excuse me, Deputy. Everyone in this House had a chance to stand where I am. Every single one did but they all failed. They went to the rung of the ladder, went out on social media, went on radio and television, and talked about government but they failed to go…
Is the Deputy telling me that we should not protect the people who work here? Doing so is totally wrong. It is unfair that the Deputies would come in criticising every element of what we do when we are all elected by the people and doing our best to serve them…
Excuse me, I did not interfere with Deputy Tóibín. He stood there and portrayed everything we are doing on this side of the House as wrong. Shame on him for portraying that.…
When the report comes out, we will constructively come back to the Deputy and we will work together to deliver it. I cannot interfere with the process. I can bring it to where it is today. If I could interfere, I would do it, but I cannot. The Deputy will just…
That is unfair. A report has to be complied with. It has gone to Kerry. In fairness to the council, it is examining it and will come back to us. We are working together. There are no people working apart. Both the council and my officials are working on this. …
Alignment by the party a member sat for on the day, with 95% Wilson intervals. This is the test the measure could have failed.
| Party | Aligned | 95% CI | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| PBP | 82.5% | 68–91% | 40 |
| LAB | 78.2% | 69–85% | 101 |
| IND | 76.5% | 72–81% | 327 |
| SF | 75.8% | 69–81% | 198 |
| SD | 71.4% | 58–82% | 49 |
| FG | 69.1% | 62–76% | 162 |
| FF | 67.9% | 60–75% | 165 |
| GP | 56.8% | 41–71% | 37 |
Members of government parties align their stated position with their vote 9.4 points less often than Independents — bootstrap 95% CI [+2.7, +16.0], which excludes zero. Opposition parties sit 9.5 points above government too, CI [+3.1, +15.9]. Independents and opposition members are indistinguishable from each other (−0.0 points, CI [−6.3, +6.2]). So the gap does not come from having no party; it comes from being in government, which is what a whip effect should look like. Read this as the measure behaving sensibly, not as a finding about any individual.
Two automated methods were built and both failed. What survives is the rule-based layer, which is why the coverage above is narrow.
| Method | Accuracy | 95% CI | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| nli-vs-mover-anchor:deberta | 35.9% | 29–42% | 234 |
| nli-vs-mover-anchor:distilroberta | 11.5% | 8–16% | 234 |
Zero-shot entailment was asked to judge contributions whose true position is known — the member moved the amendment, so the answer is support by construction — and got it right 11.5% of the time, returning "unclear" or "oppose" for nearly everything. A classifier trained on the rule-labelled cases over the corpus embeddings reached 71.1% against a 65.3% majority-class baseline: better than chance, not better enough. Both are excluded from every figure on this page. Only the rule-based cascade, which is exact where it fires and silent where it does not, is used.
Position is read from the member's own contributions in the debate section the division belongs to, by a three-step cascade: an explicit move of the question ("I move amendment No. 5", true by construction); declarative stance phrases ordered so negations are tested first, because "I cannot support" and "I do not oppose" both defeat a naive keyword match; and, where neither fires, a zero-shot entailment model judging the contribution against the question put. Tone uses a separate model and is reported separately. Agreement against hand-labelled cases, with bootstrap intervals, is on the evidence page; no score here should be read without it.