Citation Analysis

Interpretational errors with instrumental variables
Luca Locher, Mats J. Stensrud, Aaron L. Sarvet
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.02045

Citation mentions

Cited references

Sections

3,458

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			4	3	7.0	0.125	0.928	100%
2			4	2	8.0	0.125	0.811	100%
3			2	2	3.0	0.062	0.644	100%
4			2	2	3.0	0.062	0.644	100%
5			2	2	4.0	0.062	0.644	100%
6			1	1	1.0	0.031	0.406	100%
7			1	1	1.0	0.031	0.406	100%
8			1	1	2.0	0.031	0.406	100%
9			1	1	2.0	0.031	0.406	100%
10			1	1	2.0	0.031	0.406	100%
11			1	1	2.0	0.031	0.406	100%
12			1	1	2.0	0.031	0.406	100%
13			1	1	2.0	0.031	0.406	100%
14			1	1	2.0	0.031	0.406	100%
15			1	1	2.0	0.031	0.406	100%
16			1	1	2.0	0.031	0.406	100%
17			1	1	2.0	0.031	0.406	100%
18			1	1	2.0	0.031	0.406	100%
19			1	1	2.0	0.031	0.406	100%
20			1	1	2.0	0.031	0.406	100%
21			1	1	2.0	0.031	0.406	100%
22			1	1	2.0	0.031	0.406	100%
23	Guido W. Imbens. \newblock Better LATE Than Nothin...	2009	1	1	2.0	0.031	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.