← Back to paper list

Citation Analysis

\begindocument
Nathan Canen, Kyungchul Song
https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.05122
146
Citation mentions
80
Cited references
7
Sections
7,932
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 Neumark 2019 7 3 11.0 0.048 1.000 100%
2 Flinn 2006 5 4 9.0 0.034 1.000 100%
3 Ahn, Arcidiacono, and Wessels 2011 9 4 18.0 0.062 1.000 100%
4 Wolpin 2013 5 2 7.0 0.034 0.874 100%
5 Hotz, Imbens, and Mortimer 2005 6 2 9.0 0.041 0.874 100%
6 Hahn and Liao 2021 5 2 10.0 0.034 0.874 100%
7 DiNardo, Fortin, and Lemieux 1996 3 3 5.0 0.021 0.843 100%
8 Flinn and Mullins 2015 3 3 6.0 0.021 0.843 100%
9 Canen and Song (self) 2025 4 2 8.0 0.027 0.811 100%
10 Todd and Wolpin 2006 3 2 4.0 0.021 0.737 100%
11 Hartman, Grieve, Ramsahai, and Sekhon 2015 3 2 5.0 0.021 0.737 100%
12 Athey, Chetty, and Imbens 2020 3 2 5.0 0.021 0.737 100%
13 Kleven, Landais, and Saez 2013 3 2 6.0 0.021 0.737 100%
14 Fortin, Lemieux, and Firpo 2011 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
15 Dube, Lester, and Reich 2010 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
16 Flinn 2002 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
17 Gorry and Jackson 2017 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
18 Allcott 2015 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
19 Bold, Kimenyi, Mwabu, Sandefur, et al. 2018 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
20 Wang and Yang 2021 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
21 Oaxaca 1973 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
22 Blinder 1973 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
23 Juhn, Murphy, and Pierce 1993 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
24 Kline 2011 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
25 Chernozhukov, Fernandez-Val, and Melly 2013 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
26 Rothe 2010 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
27 Ao, Calonico, and Lee 2021 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
28 Hsu, Lai, and Lieli 2022 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
29 Gechter and Meager 2022 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
30 Allegretto, Dube, Reich, and Zipperer 2017 2 2 4.0 0.014 0.644 100%
31 Neumark and Wascher 2017 2 2 4.0 0.014 0.644 100%
32 Honor\'e and Powell 1994 2 2 4.0 0.014 0.644 100%
33 Attanasio, Meghir, and Santiago 2011 2 1 2.0 0.014 0.511 100%
34 Gregory and Smith 1993 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
35 Todd and Wolpin 2008 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
36 Flinn 2011 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
37 Heckman and Vytlacil 2005 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
38 Heckman 2010 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
39 Wolpin 2007 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
40 LaLonde 1986 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
41 Heckman, Ichimura, and Todd 1997 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
42 Heckman, Ichimura, Smith, and Todd 1998 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
43 Dehejia and Wahba 1999 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
44 Smith and Todd 2005 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
45 Friedlander and Robins 1995 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
46 Heckman and Smith 2000 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
47 Dehejia 2003 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
48 Stuart, Cole, Bradshaw, and Leaf 2011 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
49 Meager 2019 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
50 Vivalt 2020 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
51 Bandiera, Fischer, Prat, and Ytsma 2021 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
52 Gechter, Samii, Dehejia, and Pop-Eleches 2019 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
53 Ishihara and Kitagawa 2021 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
54 Menzel 2023 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
55 Andrews, Fudenberg, Liang, and Wu 2022 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
56 Fortin, Lemieux, and Firpo 2010 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
57 Abadie 2021 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
58 Timmermann 2006 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
59 Steel 2020 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
60 Heckman and Vytlacil 2007 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
61 Blundell and Powell 2003 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
62 Kitagawa 1955 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
63 Duflo 2004 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
64 Muralidharan and Niehaus 2017 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
65 Gui 2022 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
66 Scheuer and Werning 2017 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
67 Moretti and Wilson 2017 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
68 Akcigit, Baslandze, and Stantcheva 2016 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
69 Kleven, Landais, Saez, and Schultz 2014 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
70 Blundell and Matzkin 2014 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
71 Athey and Imbens 2006 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
72 Machado and Parente 2005 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
73 Rubin 1981 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
74 Hazell, Herreno, Nakamura, and Steinsson 2022 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
75 Phillips and Moon 1999 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
76 Clarke 1990 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
77 Newey and McFadden 1994 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
78 Shao and Tu 1995 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
79 Billingsley 1995 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
80 Politis, Romano, and Wolf 1999 1 1 2.0 0.007 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.