MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256472953 · doi:10.1257/jel.53.4.1017.r2

Book Reviews

2015· article· en· W4256472953 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Literature · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparative staticsMatching (statistics)Structural estimationEconomicsIdentification (biology)Mathematical economicsEconLitEconometricsDiscrete choiceMathematicsMicroeconomicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Benjamin Williams of George Washington University reviews “Structural Econometric Models”, by Eugene Choo and Matthew Shum. The Econlit abstract of this book begins: “Twelve papers explore recent developments in the use of structural econometric models in empirical economics. Papers discuss Euler equations for the estimation of dynamic discrete choice structural models; approximating high-dimensional dynamic models—sieve value function iteration; identifying dynamic games with serially correlated unobservables; partial identification in two-sided matching models; identification of matching complementarities—a geometric viewpoint; comparative static and computational methods for an empirical one-to-one transferable utility matching model; a test for monotone comparative statics; estimating supermodular games using rationalizable strategies; estimation of the loan spread equation with endogenous bank-firm matching; the collective marriage matching model— identification, estimation, and testing; deflation in durable goods markets—an empirical model of the Tokyo condominium market; and a dynamic analysis of the U.S. cigarette market and antismoking policies. Choo is with the Department of Economics at the University of Calgary. Shum is with the Division of Humanities and Social Sciences at the California Institute of Technology.”

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic LiteratureSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207