Difference-in-Differences with Unpoolable Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Difference-in-differences (DID) is commonly used to estimate treatment effects but is infeasible in settings where data are unpoolable due to privacy concerns or legal restrictions on data sharing, particularly across jurisdictions. In this study, we identify and relax the assumption of data poolability in DID estimation. We propose an innovative approach to estimate DID with unpoolable data (UN-DID) which can accommodate covariates, multiple groups, and staggered adoption. Through analytical proofs and Monte Carlo simulations, we show that UN-DID and conventional DID estimates of the average treatment effect and standard errors are equal and unbiased in settings without covariates. With covariates, both methods produce estimates that are unbiased, equivalent, and converge to the true value. The estimates differ slightly but the statistical inference and substantive conclusions remain the same. Two empirical examples with real-world data further underscore UN-DID's utility. The UN-DID method allows the estimation of cross-jurisdictional treatment effects with unpoolable data, enabling better counterfactuals to be used and new research questions to be answered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".