Marginal mean weighting through stratification: A generalized method for evaluating multivalued and multiple treatments with nonexperimental data.
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
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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