QUANTILE TREATMENT EFFECTS IN REGRESSION KINK DESIGNS
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
The literature on regression kink designs develops identification results for average effects of continuous treatments (Nielsen et al., 2010, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 2, 185–215; Card et al., 2015, Econometrica 83, 2453–2483), average effects of binary treatments (Dong, 2018, Jump or Kink? Identifying Education Effects by Regression Discontinuity Design without the Discontinuity), and quantile-wise effects of continuous treatments (Chiang and Sasaki, 2019, Journal of Econometrics 210, 405–433), but there has been no identification result for quantile-wise effects of binary treatments to date. In this article, we fill this void in the literature by providing an identification of quantile treatment effects in regression kink designs with binary treatment variables. For completeness, we also develop large sample theories for statistical inference, present a practical guideline on estimation and inference, conduct simulation studies, and provide an empirical illustration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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