MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411969555 · doi:10.1080/07474938.2025.2515161

Cluster-robust jackknife and bootstrap inference for logistic regression models

2025· article· en· W4411969555 on OpenAlexafffund
James G. MacKinnon, Morten Ørregaard Nielsen, Matthew D. Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueEconometric Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityQueen's University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaDanmarks Grundforskningsfond
KeywordsJackknife resamplingLogistic regressionStatisticsInferenceEconometricsCluster (spacecraft)RegressionMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEstimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study cluster-robust inference for logistic regression (logit) models. Inference based on the most commonly used cluster-robust variance matrix estimator (CRVE) can be very unreliable. We study several alternatives. Conceptually, the simplest of these, but also the most computationally demanding, involves jackknifing at the cluster level. We also propose a linearized version of the cluster-jackknife variance matrix estimator as well as linearized versions of the wild cluster bootstrap. The linearizations are based on empirical scores and are computationally efficient. Our results can readily be generalized to other binary response models. We also discuss a new Stata software package called logitjack, which implements these procedures. Simulation results strongly favor the new methods, and two empirical examples suggest that it can be important to use them in practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.165
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.165
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.468
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.008 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconometric ReviewsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207