Citation Analysis – The Yule-Frisch-Waugh-Lovell Theorem for Linear Instrumental Variables Estimation

The Yule-Frisch-Waugh-Lovell Theorem for Linear Instrumental Variables Estimation
Deepankar Basu
https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12731

163

Citation mentions

Cited references

Sections

7,294

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	Greene, W. H	2012	8	6	14.0	0.049	1.000	100%
2	Strang, G	2006	6	4	11.0	0.037	1.000	100%
3	Frisch, R. and Waugh, F. V	1933	25	7	38.0	0.153	1.000	100%
4	Lovell, M. C	1963	13	4	19.0	0.080	1.000	100%
5	Yule, G. U	1907	23	7	38.0	0.141	1.000	100%
6	Giles, D. E. A	1984	12	3	17.0	0.074	1.000	100%
7	Ding, P	2021	16	5	23.0	0.098	1.000	100%
8	Davidson, R. and MacKinnon, J. G	1993	4	3	7.0	0.025	0.928	100%
9	Davidson, R. and MacKinnon, J. G	2004	3	2	4.0	0.018	0.737	100%
10	MacKinnon, J. G. and White, H	1985	3	2	6.0	0.018	0.737	100%
11	MacKinnon, J. G., Nielsen, M. O., and Webb, M. D	2023	3	2	6.0	0.018	0.737	100%
12	Krishnakumar, J	2006	2	2	3.0	0.012	0.644	100%
13	Rao, C. R., Toutenburg, H., Shalabh, and Heumann, ...	2008	2	2	4.0	0.012	0.644	100%
14	Chipman, J. S	1998	2	2	4.0	0.012	0.644	100%
15	Yule, G. U	1911	4	1	4.0	0.025	0.644	100%
16	Cameron, A. C. and Trivedi, P. K	2005	3	1	6.0	0.018	0.585	100%
17	McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., and Mihaly, K	2012	2	1	2.0	0.012	0.511	100%
18	Gaure, S	2013	2	1	2.0	0.012	0.511	100%
19	Correia, S	2016	2	1	2.0	0.012	0.511	100%
20	Card, D	1995	2	1	4.0	0.012	0.511	100%
21	Frisch, R	1929	2	1	2.0	0.012	0.511	100%
22	Frisch, R. and Mudgett, B. D	1931	2	1	2.0	0.012	0.511	100%
23	Tielens, J. and Van Hove, J	2017	1	1	1.0	0.006	0.406	100%
24	Arendacka, B. and Puntanen, S	2015	1	1	1.0	0.006	0.406	100%
25	Cinelli, C. and Hazlett, C	2020	1	1	1.0	0.006	0.406	100%
26	Gross, J. and Moeller, A	2023	1	1	1.0	0.006	0.406	100%
27	Monsurro, P. and Trifiletti, A	2017	1	1	1.0	0.006	0.406	100%
28	Ahrens, M., Ashwin, J., Calliess, J.-P., and Nguye...	2021	1	1	1.0	0.006	0.406	100%
29	Reeves, K. L., McKinnon, E. J., and James, I. R	2012	1	1	1.0	0.006	0.406	100%
30	Hayashi, F	2000	1	1	1.0	0.006	0.406	100%
31	Angrist, J. D. and Pischke, J.-S	2009	1	1	1.0	0.006	0.406	100%
32	Agresti, A	2015	1	1	1.0	0.006	0.406	100%
33	Tintner, G	1957	1	1	1.0	0.006	0.406	100%
34	Brundy, J. M. and Jorgenson, D. W	1971	1	1	2.0	0.006	0.406	100%
35	Newey, W. K. and West, K. D	1987	1	1	2.0	0.006	0.406	100%
36	Cameron, A. C. and Miller, D. L	2015	1	1	2.0	0.006	0.406	100%
37	Cribari-Neto, F	2004	1	1	2.0	0.006	0.406	100%
38	Cribari-Neto, F., Souza, T. C., and Vasconcellos, ...	2007	1	1	2.0	0.006	0.406	100%
39	MacKinnon, J. G	2013	1	1	2.0	0.006	0.406	100%
40	Baum, C. F., Schaﬀer, M. E., and Stillman, S	2007	1	1	2.0	0.006	0.406	100%
41	Fiebig, D. G. and Bartels, R	1996	1	1	2.0	0.006	0.406	100%
42	Yule, G. U	1899	1	1	1.0	0.006	0.406	100%
43	Yule, G. U. and Kendall, M. G	1948	1	1	1.0	0.006	0.406	100%
44	Griffin, H. G	1931	1	1	1.0	0.006	0.406	100%

Reference

Year

Mentions

Breadth

Sec. Wtd

Composite

Main %

Greene, W. H

2012

14.0

0.049

1.000

100%

Strang, G

2006

11.0

0.037

1.000

100%

Frisch, R. and Waugh, F. V

1933

38.0

0.153

1.000

100%

Lovell, M. C

1963

19.0

0.080

1.000

100%

Yule, G. U

1907

38.0

0.141

1.000

100%

Giles, D. E. A

1984

17.0

0.074

1.000

100%

Ding, P

2021

23.0

0.098

1.000

100%

Davidson, R. and MacKinnon, J. G

1993

7.0

0.025

0.928

100%

Davidson, R. and MacKinnon, J. G

2004

4.0

0.018

0.737

100%

MacKinnon, J. G. and White, H

1985

6.0

0.018

0.737

100%

MacKinnon, J. G., Nielsen, M. O., and Webb, M. D

2023

6.0

0.018

0.737

100%

Krishnakumar, J

2006

3.0

0.012

0.644

100%

Rao, C. R., Toutenburg, H., Shalabh, and Heumann, ...

2008

4.0

0.012

0.644

100%

Chipman, J. S

1998

4.0

0.012

0.644

100%

Yule, G. U

1911

4.0

0.025

0.644

100%

Cameron, A. C. and Trivedi, P. K

2005

6.0

0.018

0.585

100%

McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., and Mihaly, K

2012

2.0

0.012

0.511

100%

Gaure, S

2013

2.0

0.012

0.511

100%

Correia, S

2016

2.0

0.012

0.511

100%

Card, D

1995

4.0

0.012

0.511

100%

Frisch, R

1929

2.0

0.012

0.511

100%

Frisch, R. and Mudgett, B. D

1931

2.0

0.012

0.511

100%

Tielens, J. and Van Hove, J

2017

1.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Arendacka, B. and Puntanen, S

2015

1.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Cinelli, C. and Hazlett, C

2020

1.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Gross, J. and Moeller, A

2023

1.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Monsurro, P. and Trifiletti, A

2017

1.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Ahrens, M., Ashwin, J., Calliess, J.-P., and Nguye...

2021

1.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Reeves, K. L., McKinnon, E. J., and James, I. R

2012

1.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Hayashi, F

2000

1.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Angrist, J. D. and Pischke, J.-S

2009

1.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Agresti, A

2015

1.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Tintner, G

1957

1.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Brundy, J. M. and Jorgenson, D. W

1971

2.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Newey, W. K. and West, K. D

1987

2.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Cameron, A. C. and Miller, D. L

2015

2.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Cribari-Neto, F

2004

2.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Cribari-Neto, F., Souza, T. C., and Vasconcellos, ...

2007

2.0

0.006

0.406

100%

MacKinnon, J. G

2013

2.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Baum, C. F., Schaﬀer, M. E., and Stillman, S

2007

2.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Fiebig, D. G. and Bartels, R

1996

2.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Yule, G. U

1899

1.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Yule, G. U. and Kendall, M. G

1948

1.0

0.006

0.406

100%

Griffin, H. G

1931

1.0

0.006

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.