Bibliographic record
Abstract
Causal inference from observational data rely on similar treatment and control groups to isolate for variation, in addition to adjustments in estimates to account for the remaining uncontrollable variation. Propensity score matching and statistical inference are established tools to achieve for these two requirements respectively. Network structures in the underlying data of the experiment challenge this convention since they question assumptions of independent observations and increase the risk of unobserved variables. In this paper we approach the problem with the intent of preserving propensity score matching and inference, while accommodating network information. Multiple experiments are re-evaluated with network information. All experiments were intended to create organic growth through referrals in a financial services business. We offer first, the Propensity Score Layout; a rapid visualization approach to scan data from multiple studies that potentially may require re-evaluation due to network structure. Second, the Propensity Score Network Risk; a metric that captures the extent to which network structure interferes with the treatment of the experiment. And third; variables constructed from network information that to our surprise estimate the propensity score significantly better than node attributes. We also present a set of interesting problems for researchers in academia and industry. To the best of our knowledge network methods have not been studied thoroughly in this domain. We feel the combination of technique, results and domain are novel.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".