Causal inference for multiple treatments using fractional factorial designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We consider the design and analysis of multi‐factor experiments using fractional factorial and incomplete designs within the potential outcome framework. These designs are particularly useful when limited resources make running a full factorial design infeasible. We connect our design‐based methods to standard regression methods. We further motivate the usefulness of these designs in multi‐factor observational studies, where certain treatment combinations may be so rare that there are no measured outcomes in the observed data corresponding to them. Therefore, conceptualizing a hypothetical fractional factorial experiment instead of a full factorial experiment allows for appropriate analysis in those settings. We illustrate our approach using biomedical data from the 2003–2004 cycle of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to examine the effects of four common pesticides on body mass index.
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 | 0.194 | 0.309 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".