MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3150744887

Fast and Wild: Bootstrap Inference in Stata Using boottest

2018· article· en· W3150744887 on OpenAlexfundno aff
James G. MacKinnon, Morten Ørregaard Nielsen, David Roodman, Matthew D. Webb

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsDanmarks GrundforskningsfondNational Research Foundation
KeywordsInferenceHeteroscedasticityComputer scienceCluster analysisBootstrap aggregatingStatisticsRange (aeronautics)EconometricsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wild bootstrap was originally developed for regression models with heteroskedasticity of unknown form. Over the past thirty years, it has been extended to models estimated by instrumental variables and maximum likelihood, and to ones where the error terms are (perhaps multi-way) clustered. Like bootstrap methods in general, the wild bootstrap is especially useful when conventional inference methods are unreliable because large-sample assumptions do not hold. For example, there may be few clusters, few treated clusters, or weak instruments. The Stata package boottest can perform a wide variety of wild bootstrap tests, often at remarkable speed. It can also invert these tests to construct confidence sets. As a postestimation command, boottest works after linear estimation commands including regress, cnsreg, ivregress, ivreg2, areg, and reghdfe, as well as many estimation commands based on maximum likelihood. Although it is designed to perform the wild cluster bootstrap, boottest can also perform the ordinary (non-clustered) version. Wrappers offer classical Wald, score/LM, and Anderson-Rubin tests, optionally with (multi-way) clustering. We review the main ideas of the wild cluster bootstrap, offer tips for use, explain why it is particularly amenable to computational optimization, state the syntax of boottest, artest, scoretest, and waldtest, and present several empirical examples for 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.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1390.065

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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207