Unobserved Heterogeneity in the Binary Logit Model with Cross-Sectional Data and Short Panels: A Finite Mixture Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a new approach to dealing with unobserved heterogeneity in applied research using the binary logit model with cross-sectional data and short panels. Unobserved heterogeneity is particularly important in non-linear regression models such as the binary logit model because, unlike in linear regression models, estimates of the effects of observed independent variables are biased even when omitted independent variables are uncorrelated with the observed independent variables. We propose an extension of the binary logit model based on a finite mixture approach in which we conceptualize the unobserved heterogeneity via latent classes. Simulation results show that our approach leads to considerably less bias in the estimated effects of the independent variables than the standard logit model. Furthermore, because identification of the unobserved heterogeneity is weak when the researcher has cross-sectional rather than panel data, we propose a simple approach that fixes latent class weights and improves identification and estimation. Finally, we illustrate the applicability of our new approach using Canadian survey data on public support for redistribution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it