MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154068546 · doi:10.1162/rest.2009.11453

Estimating Treatment Effects from Contaminated Multiperiod Education Experiments: The Dynamic Impacts of Class Size Reductions

2010· article· en· W2154068546 on OpenAlexaff
Weili Ding, Steven Lehrer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Review of Economics and Statistics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttritionTreatment and control groupsTreatment effectRandomized experimentSample size determinationRandomized controlled trialClass sizeClass (philosophy)EconometricsCognitionAverage treatment effectStatisticsMathematicsPsychologyComputer scienceMedicinePropensity score matchingMathematics educationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces an empirical strategy to estimate dynamic treatment effects in randomized trials that provide treatment in multiple stages and in which various noncompliance problems arise, such as attrition and selective transitions between treatment and control groups. Our approach is applied to the highly influential four-year randomized class size study, Project STAR. We find benefits from attending small classes in all cognitive subject areas in kindergarten and first grade. We do not find any statistically significant dynamic benefits from continuous treatment versus never attending small classes following grade 1. Finally, statistical tests support accounting for both selective attrition and noncompliance with treatment assignment.

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)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.297
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.297
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.355 · 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
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations68
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Review of Economics and StatisticsSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207