MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2663305152 · doi:10.1002/jae.2580

Weak‐instrument robust inference for two‐sample instrumental variables regression

2017· article· en· W2663305152 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Econometrics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersConnaught FundHellman Foundation
KeywordsInstrumental variableInferenceEstimatorEconometricsCovariateMathematicsStatisticsSample (material)Sample size determinationMonte Carlo methodRegressionRegression analysisHeteroscedasticityVariablesComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Instrumental variable (IV) methods for regression are well established. More recently, methods have been developed for statistical inference when the instruments are weakly correlated with the endogenous regressor, so that estimators are biased and no longer asymptotically normally distributed. This paper extends such inference to the case where two separate samples are used to implement instrumental variables estimation. We also relax the restrictive assumptions of homoskedastic error structure and equal moments of exogenous covariates across two samples commonly employed in the two‐sample IV literature for strong IV inference. Monte Carlo experiments show good size properties of the proposed tests regardless of the strength of the instruments. We apply the proposed methods to two seminal empirical studies that adopt the two‐sample IV framework.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.196 · 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