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 OpenAlex
Patrik Guggenberger, Gitanjali Kumar

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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 − ε P , where ε P 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

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