The interventionist approach can address questions related to causes of effects if causes are considered as states instead of interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interventionist approach to causal inference recommends that observational studies be framed as randomized trials with well-defined interventions to more precisely define the population of interest, exposure comparisons, assignment procedures, follow-up period, and outcomes. However, others suggest causes are not restricted to interventions, and the approach is too restrictive and will limit science. The described examples usually refer to questions about causes of effects/outcomes (rather than effects of interventions), where the 'cause' of interest often represents a mediator variable between an existing or hypothesized intervention. These questions are important because they represent the foundation for improving existing interventions and developing new interventions. In this article, I show how the interventionist approach can be used to try and answer these broader 'causes of effects/outcomes' questions. I use the sufficient casual set framework popularized by Rothman, which considers causes as states rather than interventions. The method is fully consistent with the potential outcomes approach and the need for well-defined counterfactuals. Whereas the effect of an intervention can theoretically be evaluated with an idealized single randomized trial, evaluating the causes of effects/outcomes requires evidence synthesis across multiple studies that each emulate a different target randomized trial. In other words, questions related to the effects of interventions are a special case where all the evidence that needs to be synthesized is available within a single idealized trial. Finally, considering states as causes also provides a transparent way to think about well-defined counterfactuals, and how factors that are commonly referred to as "non-manipulable" such as sex can also be studied as causes.
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 | 0.124 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".