跳到正文
收录说明
收录范围
保留计量方法研究、相关统计基础,以及实质涉及计量方法的应用、教程、比较和综述。书评、刊务及明确无关内容不公开;身份或相关性证据不足的记录保留待核,补充可靠材料后可重新判断。
当前期刊来源见下方官网链接及期刊目录。综合经济学与金融期刊逐篇筛查计量方向,证据不足时暂不公开。正刊、在线优先论文和已核实接收稿合并展示;按标题、可靠摘要、目录及身份匹配的出版社 JEL 分类核验相关性;计量类 JEL 与摘要相互印证,无 JEL 不直接排除。历史回补以可取得的注册题录和目录为准,不等于覆盖全部纸本。
日期与排序
默认按最近发表排序:正刊使用刊期,待刊使用上线日期;缺少上线日期时,排序参考登记或首次收录时间,并在卡片注明。更多筛选可选择出版状态和日期口径;卷期依据出版社元数据,不因待刊时间较长而推定已编入正刊。仅有月份或年份时,日期区间相交也会纳入。

日期精度:到日 0 篇 · 到月 1 篇 · 到年 1 篇

分类与引用
领域和方法依据题名、摘要初步分类,可人工修正;分类不代表论文质量。引用数采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计版本。
更新与 AI 解读
正常题录、可靠摘要与引用同步继续;日、周、月简报按核实的发表与修订日期汇总,历史补录保留在文献库。AI 解读依据可靠摘要或已核实原文片段,已有解读保留供阅读参考;缺少可靠材料的条目保持待解读,浏览页面不会触发生成。
2 篇论文
导出

Estimating the Effect of Treatments Allocated by Randomized Waiting Lists

Oversubscribed treatments are often allocated using randomized waiting lists. Applicants are ranked randomly, and treatment offers are made following that ranking until all seats are filled. To estimate causal effects, researchers often compare applicants getting and not getting an offer. We show that those two groups are not statistically comparable. Therefore, the estimator arising from that comparison is inconsistent when the number of waitlists goes to infinity. We…

阅读原文 ↗BibTeX ↓

Please Call Again: Correcting Nonresponse Bias in Treatment Effect Models

请再次致电:校正处理效应模型中的无应答偏差

We propose a novel selectivity correction procedure to deal with survey attrition in treatment effect models, at the crossroads of the Heckit model and the bounding approach of Lee (2009). As a substitute for the instrument needed in sample selectivity correction models, we use information on the number of prior calls made to each individual before obtaining a response to the survey. We obtain sharp bounds to the average treatment effect on the common support of responding…

AI 解读阅读原文 ↗BibTeX ↓