Analyzing Age-Period-Cohort Data: A Review and Critique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age-period-cohort (APC) analysis has a long, controversial history in sociology and related fields. Despite the existence of hundreds, if not thousands, of articles and dozens of books, there is little agreement on how to adequately analyze APC data. This article begins with a brief overview of APC analysis, discussing how one can interpret APC effects in a causal way. Next, we review methods that obtain point identification of APC effects, such as the equality constraints model, Moore-Penrose estimators, and multilevel models. We then outline techniques that entail point identification using measured causes, such as the proxy variables approach and mechanism-based models. Next, we discuss a general framework for APC analysis grounded in partial identification using bounds and sensitivity analyses. We conclude by outlining a general step-by-step procedure for conducting APC analyses, presenting an empirical example examining temporal shifts in verbal ability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.057 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".