MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993260957 · doi:10.1037/a0024918

Marginal mean weighting through stratification: A generalized method for evaluating multivalued and multiple treatments with nonexperimental data.

2011· article· en· W1993260957 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Guanglei Hong

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Methods · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Academy of EducationSpencer FoundationSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaWilliam T. Grant Foundation
KeywordsCausal inferenceCovariatePropensity score matchingWeightingAverage treatment effectInverse probability weightingStatisticsMathematicsRandomized experimentEconometricsNonparametric statisticsInferenceBinary dataComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBinary number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Propensity score matching and stratification enable researchers to make statistical adjustment for a large number of observed covariates in nonexperimental data. These methods have recently become popular in psychological research. Yet their applications to evaluations of multi-valued and multiple treatments are limited. The inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting method, though suitable for evaluating multi-valued and multiple treatments, often generates results that are not robust when only a portion of the population provides support for causal inference or when the functional form of the propensity score model is misspecified. The marginal mean weighting through stratification (MMW-S) method promises a viable nonparametric solution to these problems. By computing weights on the basis of stratified propensity scores, MMW-S adjustment equates the pretreatment composition of multiple treatment groups under the assumption that unmeasured covariates do not confound the treatment effects given the observed covariates. Analyzing data from a weighted sample, researchers can estimate a causal effect by computing the difference between the estimated average potential outcomes associated with alternative treatments within the analysis of variance framework. After providing an intuitive illustration of the theoretical rationale underlying the weighting method for causal inferences, the article demonstrates how to apply the MMW-S method to evaluations of treatments measured on a binary, ordinal, or nominal scale approximating a completely randomized experiment; to studies of multiple concurrent treatments approximating factorial randomized designs; and to moderated treatment effects approximating randomized block designs. The analytic procedure is illustrated with an evaluation of educational services for English language learners attending kindergarten in the United States.

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)0.124
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.257
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1240.257
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.794
GPT teacher head0.657
Teacher spread0.137 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations106
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological MethodsSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207