MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985212210 · doi:10.1002/jae.1251

On the size distortion of tests after an overidentifying restrictions pretest

2011· article· en· W1985212210 on OpenAlexaff
Patrik Guggenberger, Gitanjali Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Econometrics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
FundersAlfred P. Sloan FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNull hypothesisEndogeneityDistortion (music)EconometricsMathematicsUpper and lower boundsTest (biology)Instrumental variableMonte Carlo methodStatisticsStatistical hypothesis testingMathematical economicsEconomicsApplied mathematicsComputer scienceMathematical analysisTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY In the linear instrumental variables model, we provide theoretical and Monte Carlo evidence for the size distortion of a two‐stage hypothesis test that uses a test of overidentifying restrictions (OR) in the first stage. We derive a lower bound for the asymptotic size of the two‐stage test. The lower bound is given by the asymptotic size of a test that rejects the null hypothesis when two conditions are met: the test of OR used in the first stage does not reject and the test in the second stage rejects. This lower bound can be as large as 1 − εP, where εP is the pretest nominal size, for a parameter space that allows for local non‐exogeneity of the instruments but rules out weak instruments. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.213
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.677
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2130.677
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.051 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EconometricsSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207