MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121695905 · doi:10.1162/rest_a_00622

Testing Local Average Treatment Effect Assumptions

2016· preprint· en· W3121695905 on OpenAlexaff
Ismaël Mourifié, Yuanyuan Wan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Review of Economics and Statistics · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersection (aeronautics)Sign (mathematics)Instrumental variableEconometricsMonotonic functionSet (abstract data type)Identification (biology)Computer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose an easy-to-implement procedure to test the key conditions for the identification and estimation of the local average treatment effect (LATE; Imbens & Angrist, 1994). We reformulate the testable implications of LATE assumptions as two conditional inequalities, which can be tested in the intersection bounds framework of Chernozhukov, Lee, and Rosen (2013) and easily implemented using the Stata package of Chernozhukov et al. (2015). We apply the proposed tests to the draft eligibility instrument in Angrist (1991), the college proximity instrument in Card (1993), and the same-sex instrument in Angrist and Evans (1998).

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)0.145
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.510
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1450.510
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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