The Causal Cookbook: Recipes for Propensity Scores, G-Computation, and Doubly Robust Standardization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent developments in the causal-inference literature have renewed psychologists’ interest in how to improve causal conclusions based on observational data. A lot of the recent writing has focused on concerns of causal identification (under which conditions is it, in principle, possible to recover causal effects?); in this primer, we turn to causal estimation (how do researchers actually turn the data into an effect estimate?) and modern approaches to it that are commonly used in epidemiology. First, we explain how causal estimands can be defined rigorously with the help of the potential-outcomes framework, and we highlight four crucial assumptions necessary for causal inference to succeed (exchangeability, positivity, consistency, and noninterference). Next, we present three types of approaches to causal estimation and compare their strengths and weaknesses: propensity-score methods (in which the independent variable is modeled as a function of controls), g-computation methods (in which the dependent variable is modeled as a function of both controls and the independent variable), and doubly robust estimators (which combine models for both independent and dependent variables). A companion R Notebook is available at github.com/ArthurChatton/CausalCookbook. We hope that this nontechnical introduction not only helps psychologists and other social scientists expand their causal toolbox but also facilitates communication across disciplinary boundaries when it comes to causal inference, a research goal common to all fields of research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.029 |
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".