MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163572667 · doi:10.1002/jae.873

The case against JIVE

2006· article· en· W2163572667 on OpenAlexaff
Russell Davidson, James G. MacKinnon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Econometrics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJackknife resamplingEstimatorInstrumental variableEconometricsComputer scienceMonte Carlo methodEconomicsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We perform an extensive series of Monte Carlo experiments to compare the performance of two variants of the ‘jackknife instrumental variables estimator’, or JIVE, with that of the more familiar 2SLS and LIML estimators. We find no evidence to suggest that JIVE should ever be used. It is always more dispersed than 2SLS, often very much so, and it is almost always inferior to LIML in all respects. Interestingly, JIVE seems to perform particularly badly when the instruments are weak. Copyright © 2006 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.

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)0.168
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.471
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1680.471
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.129 · 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
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

Citations54
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EconometricsSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207