MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210644525 · doi:10.1177/00491241211036165

Moving Beyond Linear Regression: Implementing and Interpreting Quantile Regression Models With Fixed Effects

2022· article· en· W4210644525 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Methods & Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantile regressionEconometricsRegressionQuantileLinear regressionFixed effects modelRegression analysisReplication (statistics)Range (aeronautics)WageStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsEconomicsPanel data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantile regression (QR) provides an alternative to linear regression (LR) that allows for the estimation of relationships across the distribution of an outcome. However, as highlighted in recent research on the motherhood penalty across the wage distribution, different procedures for conditional and unconditional quantile regression (CQR, UQR) often result in divergent findings that are not always well understood. In light of such discrepancies, this paper reviews how to implement and interpret a range of LR, CQR, and UQR models with fixed effects. It also discusses the use of Quantile Treatment Effect (QTE) models as an alternative to overcome some of the limitations of CQR and UQR models. We then review how to interpret results in the presence of fixed effects based on a replication of Budig and Hodges’s work on the motherhood penalty using NLSY79 data.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
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 score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.381
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.218 · 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