Predicting the efficacy of future training programs using past experiences at other locations
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Site selection in experimental evaluations of training programs and energy conservation programs matches the pattern of treatment rolling out first to units with the largest effects.
“Site selection in experimental evaluations of training programs (Joseph Hotz, Imbens, and Mortimer 2005) and energy conservation programs (Allcott 2015) matches this pattern.”
From Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing (2021) · cites this paper as Joseph Hotz, Imbens, and Mortimer 2005
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 190
- Authors
- Joseph Hotz, V., Imbens, G. W., & Mortimer, J. H.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Econometrics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-03
- Volume
- 125
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 241-270
- ISSN
- 0304-4076 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2131428863
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 3.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Econometrics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
- Keywords
- program transferability, population overlap, individual characteristics, unobserved heterogeneity, non-experimental evaluation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
