Citation Analysis

2501.19394
Konrad Menzel
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.19394
89
Citation mentions
49
Cited references
9
Sections
6,291
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 Manski 2011 5 3 7.0 0.056 1.000 100%
2 Aronow and Samii 2017 8 6 14.5 0.090 1.000 100%
3 Li and Wager 2022 5 5 7.0 0.056 0.928 80%
4 Bramoulle, Djebbari, and Fortin 2009 4 3 6.5 0.045 0.928 100%
5 Savje 2024 5 2 5.5 0.056 0.874 100%
6 Hudgens and Halloran 2008 4 3 5.0 0.045 0.843 75%
7 Tchetgen-Tchetgen and VanderWeele 2010 3 3 4.5 0.034 0.843 100%
8 Leung 2022 3 3 4.5 0.034 0.843 100%
9 Harshaw, Savje, and Wang 2022 3 3 4.5 0.034 0.843 100%
10 Hu, Li, and Wager 2022 2 2 2.5 0.022 0.644 100%
11 Abadie, Athey, Imbens, and Wooldridge 2017 2 2 4.0 0.022 0.644 100%
12 Rubin 1980 2 2 4.0 0.022 0.644 100%
13 Liu, Hudgens, and Becker-Dreps 2016 2 2 2.5 0.022 0.644 100%
14 Auerbach and Tabord-Meehan 2020 2 2 2.5 0.022 0.644 100%
15 Abadie, Athey, Imbens, and Wooldridge 2014 2 2 4.0 0.022 0.644 100%
16 Angrist, Imbens, and Rubin 1996 2 2 4.0 0.022 0.644 100%
17 Imbens and Menzel (self) 2021 2 2 2.5 0.022 0.511 50%
18 Bjorn and Vuong 1984 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
19 Bresnahan and Reiss 1990 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
20 Tamer 2003 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
21 de Paula 2013 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
22 Altonji and Segal 1996 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
23 Kremer and Miguel 2003 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
24 Ad\ ao, Kolesar, and Morales 2020 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
25 Donaldson and Hornbeck 2016 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
26 Manski 1993 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.406 100%
27 Halloran and Struchiner 1997 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.406 100%
28 Brock and Durlauf 2001 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.406 100%
29 Ogburn, Sofrygin, Diaz, and van der Laan 2024 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.406 100%
30 Wang, Samii, Chang, and Aronow 2024 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.406 100%
31 Gao 2024 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.406 100%
32 Munro, Wager, and Xu 2022 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.406 100%
33 Athey, Eckles, and Imbens 2018 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.406 100%
34 Eckles, Karrer, and Ugander 2017 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.406 100%
35 Auerbach, Auerbach, and Tabord-Meehan 2024 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.406 100%
36 Sussman and Airoldi 2017 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.406 100%
37 Leung 2024 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.406 100%
38 Chang 2023 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.406 100%
39 Liu and Hudgens 2014 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.406 100%
40 Chin, Eckles, and Ugander 2022 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.406 100%
41 Ding and Gao 2023 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.406 100%
42 Aubin and Frankowska 1990 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
43 Topkis 1978 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
44 Milgrom and Roberts 1990 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
45 Imbens and Rubin 2015 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
46 Chen and Shao 2004 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
47 Aronow, Green, and Lee 2014 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
48 Seneta 1981 2 1 1.0 0.022 0.110 0%
49 Ross 2011 1 1 0.5 0.011 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.