Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparisons between alternative scenarios are used in many disciplines, from macroeconomics through epidemiology to climate science, to help with planning future responses. Differences between scenario paths are often interpreted as signifying likely differences between outcomes that would materialise in reality. However, even when using correctly specified statistical models of the in-sample data generation process, additional conditions are needed to sustain inferences about differences between scenario paths. We consider two questions in scenario analyses: First, does testing the difference between scenarios yield additional insight beyond simple tests conducted on the model estimated in-sample? Second, when does the estimated scenario difference yield unbiased estimates of the true difference in outcomes? Answering the first question, we show that the calculation of uncertainties around scenario differences raises difficult issues, since the underlying in-sample distributions are identical for both ‘potential’ outcomes when the reported paths are deterministic functions. Under these circumstances, a scenario comparison adds little beyond testing for the significance of the perturbed variable in the estimated model. Resolving the second question, when models include multiple covariates, inferences about scenario differences depend on the relationships between the conditioning variables, especially their invariance to the interventions being implemented. Tests for invariance based on the automatic detection of structural breaks can help identify the in-sample invariance of models to evaluate likely constancy in projected scenarios. Applications of scenario analyses to impacts on the UK’s wage share from unemployment and agricultural growth from climate change illustrate the concepts.
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 | 0.036 | 0.238 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".