← Back to paper list

Citation Analysis

With big data come big problems:\\ pitfalls in measuring basis risk for crop index insurance
Matthieu Stigler, Apratim Dey, Andrew Hobbs, David Lobell
https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14611
51
Citation mentions
37
Cited references
7
Sections
4,598
Words (approx)

References by Citation Intensity

Ordered by composite index (descending). Higher values indicate more intensive citation.

# Reference Year Mentions Breadth Sec. Wtd Share Composite Main %
1 Matthieu Stigler and David Lobell (self) 2021 4 2 8.0 0.078 0.811 100%
2 Jeongyoun Ahn and J. S. Marron and Keith M. Muller... 2007 5 2 7.0 0.098 0.737 60%
3 Iain M. Johnstone 2001 2 2 3.0 0.039 0.644 100%
4 Peter Hall and J. S. Marron and Amnon Neeman 2005 2 2 3.0 0.039 0.644 100%
5 Conradt, Sarah and Finger, Robert and Bokusheva, R... 2015 2 2 4.0 0.039 0.644 100%
6 Carter, Michael and de Janvry, Alain and Sadoulet,... 2017 2 1 2.0 0.039 0.511 100%
7 Roger Koenker and José A. F. Machado 1999 2 1 4.0 0.039 0.511 100%
8 Jillian M. Deines and Rinkal Patel and Sang-Zi Lia... (self) 2021 2 1 4.0 0.039 0.511 100%
9 Zhenong Jin and George Azzari and Calum You and St... 2019 2 1 4.0 0.039 0.511 100%
10 Clarke, Daniel J. 2016 1 1 1.0 0.020 0.406 100%
11 Clarke, Daniel Jonathan and Clarke, Daniel and Mah... 2012 1 1 1.0 0.020 0.406 100%
12 Jensen, Nathaniel D. and Barrett, Christopher B. a... 2016 1 1 1.0 0.020 0.406 100%
13 Benami, Elinor and Jin, Zhenong and Carter, Michae... (self) 2021 1 1 1.0 0.020 0.406 100%
14 De Leeuw, Jan and Vrieling, Anton and Shee, Apurba... 2014 1 1 1.0 0.020 0.406 100%
15 Carter, Michael and De Janvry, Alain and Sadoulet,... 2014 1 1 1.0 0.020 0.406 100%
16 Elabed, Ghada and Bellemare, Marc F. and Carter, M... 2013 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
17 Raushan Bokusheva 2018 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
18 Bucheli, Janic and Dalhaus, Tobias and Finger, Rob... 2020 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
19 David B. Lobell and David Thau and Christopher Sei... (self) 2015 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
20 Zhenong Jin and George Azzari and David B. Lobell (self) 2017 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
21 G. Azzari and D.B. Lobell (self) 2017 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
22 Marshall Burke and David B. Lobell (self) 2016 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
23 Zhenong Jin and George Azzari and Burke, M. and As... 2017 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
24 Lobell, David B and Azzari, George and Burke, Mars... (self) 2020 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
25 Christopher A Seifert and George Azzari and David ... (self) 2018 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
26 Jillian M Deines and Sherrie Wang and David B Lobe... (self) 2019 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
27 Matthieu Stigler (self) 2018 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
28 Stigler, Matthieu and David Lobell (self) 2020 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
29 Wang, Weichen and Fan, Jianqing 2017 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
30 Mario J. Miranda 1991 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
31 Mahul, Olivier 1999 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
32 I. M. Johnstone 2018 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
33 Jung, Sungkyu and Marron, J. S. 2009 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
34 Aoshima, Makoto and Shen, Dan and Shen, Haipeng an... 2018 1 1 2.0 0.020 0.406 100%
35 Patrick Billingsley 1995 1 1 0.5 0.020 0.087 0%
36 Kanti Mardia and J. Kent and J. Bibby 1979 1 1 0.5 0.020 0.087 0%
37 Ishii, A. and Yata, K. and Aoshima, M. 2014 1 1 0.5 0.020 0.087 0%
Measures: Mentions = total in-text citations; Breadth = distinct sections; Sec. Wtd = section-weighted count (body ×2, lit review/appendix ×0.5); Share = mentions / total citations in paper; Composite = geometric mean of normalised count, breadth, and main-text ratio; Main % = fraction of mentions in main text (excl. appendix). (self) = self-citation.

Citation intensity data generated from LaTeX source analysis.