← Back to paper list

Citation Analysis

Difference-in-Differences with Compositional Changes
Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna, Qi Xu
https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.13925
132
Citation mentions
59
Cited references
7
Sections
6,117
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 Sant’Anna and Zhao (self) 2020 35 10 61.0 0.265 1.000 100%
2 Abadie 2005 4 4 7.0 0.030 0.928 100%
3 Hong 2013 5 2 7.0 0.038 0.874 100%
4 Sequeira 2016 16 2 30.0 0.121 0.874 100%
5 Rothe and Firpo 2019 3 3 5.0 0.023 0.843 100%
6 Chernozhukov, Chetverikov, Demirer, Duflo, Hansen,... 2017 3 2 4.0 0.023 0.737 100%
7 Kennedy 2023 3 2 4.0 0.023 0.737 100%
8 Heckman, Ichimura and Todd 1997 2 2 3.0 0.015 0.644 100%
9 Callaway and Sant’Anna (self) 2021 2 2 3.0 0.015 0.644 100%
10 Smucler, Rotnitzky and Robins 2019 2 2 3.0 0.015 0.644 100%
11 Hausman 1978 2 2 3.0 0.015 0.644 100%
12 Stuart, Huskamp, Duckworth, Simmons, Song, Chernew... 2014 2 2 3.0 0.015 0.644 100%
13 Nie, Lu and Wager 2024 2 2 3.0 0.015 0.644 100%
14 Newey 1994 2 2 3.0 0.015 0.644 100%
15 Fan, Heckman and Wand 1995 2 2 3.0 0.015 0.644 100%
16 Roth, Sant'Anna, Bilinski and Poe (self) 2023 2 1 2.0 0.015 0.511 100%
17 2 1 2.0 0.015 0.511 100%
18 Colangelo and Lee 2023 2 1 2.0 0.015 0.511 100%
19 Farrell 2015 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
20 Baker, Callaway, Cunningham, Goodman-Bacon and San... (self) 2025 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
21 Chang 2020 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
22 Chen, Linton and Van Keilegom 2003 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
23 Chen, Hong and Tarozzi 2008 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
24 Ackerberg, Chen, Hahn and Liao 2014 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
25 Claeskens and Van Keilegom 2003 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
26 Li and Ouyang 2005 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
27 Kong, Linton and Xia 2010 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
28 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
29 Rathnayake, Negi, Bartalotti and Zhao 2024 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
30 Abbring and van den Berg 2003 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
31 Malani and Reif 2015 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
32 Khan and Tamer 2010 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
33 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
34 Millimet and Tchernis 2009 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
35 Busso, Dinardo and McCrary 2014 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
36 Bickel, Klaassen, Ritov and Wellner 1998 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
37 Kennedy 2016 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
38 Rotnitzky, Smucler and Robins 2021 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
39 Jordan, Wang and Zhou 2022 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
40 Bonvini, Kennedy, Dukes and Balakrishnan 2024 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
41 van der Vaart and Wellner 1996 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
42 van der Vaart 1998 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
43 Kosorok 2008 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
44 Frolich 2006 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
45 Li and Racine 2007 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
46 Powell and Stoker 1996 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
47 Powell, Stock and Stoker 1989 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
48 Fan and Guerre 2016 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
49 Lee 2018 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
50 Staniswalis 1989 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
51 Li, Li and Li 2021 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
52 Armstrong, Kline and Sun 2024 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
53 Guggenberger 2010 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
54 Guggenberger 2010 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
55 Roth 2022 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
56 Sequeira and Djankov 2014 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
57 Meyer 1995 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
58 Chen and Roth 2024 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
59 Jankova and Van De Geer 2018 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
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.