Powerful t-tests in the presence of nonclassical measurement error
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes a powerful alternative to the t-test of the null hypothesis that a coefficient in a linear regression is equal to zero when a regressor is mismeasured. We assume there are two contaminated measurements of the regressor of interest. We allow the two measurement errors to be nonclassical in the sense that they may both be correlated with the true regressor, they may be correlated with each other, and we do not require any location normalizations on the measurement errors. We propose a new maximal t-statistic that is formed from the regression of the outcome onto a maximally weighted linear combination of the two measurements. The critical values of the test are easily computed via a multiplier bootstrap. In simulations, we show that this new test can be significantly more powerful than t-statistics based on OLS or IV estimates. Finally, we apply the proposed test to a study of returns to education based on twin data from the UK. With our maximal t-test, we can discover statistically significant returns to education when standard t-tests do not.
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 | 0.067 | 0.336 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".