← Back to paper list

Citation Analysis

\large\bfSpatial and Temporal Boundaries in Difference-in-Differences: \\ A Framework from Navier-Stokes Equation
Tatsuru Kikuchi
https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11013
52
Citation mentions
37
Cited references
12
Sections
3,754
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 Butts, K. and Gardner, J 2023 4 3 6.0 0.077 0.928 100%
2 Kikuchi, T (self) 2024a 4 4 6.0 0.077 0.928 100%
3 Kikuchi, T (self) 2024b 4 4 6.0 0.077 0.928 100%
4 Deryugina, T., Heutel, G., Miller, N. H., Molitor,... 2019 2 2 3.0 0.038 0.644 100%
5 Knittel, C. R., Miller, D. L., and Sanders, N. J 2016 2 2 3.0 0.038 0.644 100%
6 Fowlie, M., Holland, S. P., and Mansur, E. T 2012 2 2 3.0 0.038 0.644 100%
7 Colella, F., Lalive, R., Sakalli, S. O., and Thoen... 2019 2 2 3.0 0.038 0.644 100%
8 Cimorelli, A. J., Perry, S. G., Venkatram, A., et ... 2005 2 2 4.0 0.038 0.644 100%
9 Byun, D. W. and Schere, K. L 1999 2 2 4.0 0.038 0.644 100%
10 Donaldson, D. and Hornbeck, R 2016 1 1 1.0 0.019 0.406 100%
11 Duranton, G. and Turner, M. A 2012 1 1 1.0 0.019 0.406 100%
12 Busso, M., Gregory, J., and Kline, P 2013 1 1 1.0 0.019 0.406 100%
13 Kline, P. and Moretti, E 2014 1 1 1.0 0.019 0.406 100%
14 Glaeser, E. L. and Gottlieb, J. D 2008 1 1 1.0 0.019 0.406 100%
15 Goodman-Bacon, A 2021 1 1 1.0 0.019 0.406 100%
16 Currie, J. and Walker, R 2011 1 1 1.0 0.019 0.406 100%
17 DellaVigna, S. and Linos, E 2022 1 1 1.0 0.019 0.406 100%
18 Anselin, L 1988 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
19 Conley, T. G 1999 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
20 Kelejian, H. H. and Prucha, I. R 2010 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
21 Drukker, D. M., Prucha, I. R., and Raciborski, R 2013 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
22 LeSage, J. and Pace, R. K 2009 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
23 Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., and Todd, P. E 1997 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
24 Imbens, G. W. and Rubin, D. B 2015 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
25 Athey, S. and Imbens, G. W 2017 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
26 Angrist, J. D. and Kolesár, M 2022 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
27 Dehejia, R. H 2005 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
28 Allcott, H 2015 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
29 Deaton, A 2010 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
30 Currie, J. and Neidell, M 2005 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
31 Currie, J., Davis, L., Greenstone, M., and Walker,... 2011 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
32 Martin, R. V., Brauer, M., van Donkelaar, A., et a... 2019 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
33 van Donkelaar, A., Martin, R. V., Brauer, M., et a... 2016 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
34 Bey, I., Jacob, D. J., Yantosca, R. M., et al 2001 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
35 Muller, N. Z. and Mendelsohn, R 2009 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
36 Clay, K., Jha, A., Muller, N. Z., and Walsh, R 2019 1 1 2.0 0.019 0.406 100%
37 Apte, J. S., Marshall, J. D., Cohen, A. J., and Br... 2012 1 1 2.0 0.019 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.