Citation Analysis

Dyadic data with ordered outcome variables
Chris Muris, Cavit Pakel, Qichen Zhang
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.16689

Citation mentions

Cited references

Sections

10,476

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	Muris (self)	2017	5	3	9.0	0.116	1.000	100%
2	Jochmans	2018	13	8	19.0	0.302	0.885	69%
3	Charbonneau	2017	3	3	5.0	0.070	0.843	100%
4	Van\bibnamedelima Duijn, Gile, Handcock	2009	3	2	4.0	0.070	0.737	100%
5	Botosaru, Muris, Pendakur (self)	2023	3	2	5.0	0.070	0.737	100%
6	Baetschmann	2012	3	2	6.0	0.070	0.737	100%
7	Das, van Soest	1999	2	2	3.0	0.047	0.644	100%
8	Johnson	2004	2	2	3.0	0.047	0.644	100%
9	Baetschmann, Staub, Winkelmann	2015	2	2	3.0	0.047	0.644	100%
10	Graham	2017	2	2	3.0	0.047	0.644	100%
11	Lai, Reiter	2000	1	1	1.0	0.023	0.406	100%
12	Dzemski	2019	1	1	1.0	0.023	0.406	100%
13	Hughes	2023	1	1	1.0	0.023	0.406	100%
14	Szini	2025	1	1	1.0	0.023	0.406	100%
15	Abrevaya, Muris (self)	2020	1	1	2.0	0.023	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.