The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Distribution-Free Maximum Likelihood Estimator of the Binary Choice Model
Abstract
is a given function of the exogenous variables z and unknown parameters 9, representing the systematic component of the utility difference, and F is the distribution function of the random component of the utility difference. This paper describes a method of estimating the parameters 9 without assuming any functional form for the distribution function F, and proves that this estimator is consistent. F is also consistently estimated. The method uses maximum likelihood estimation in which the likelihood is maximized not only over the parameter 9 but also over a space which contains all distribution functions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Models for Sample Selection Bias
Winship, C., & Mare, R. D. (1992) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.001551 · Cited by 812
Misclassification of the dependent variable in a discrete-response setting
Hausman, J. A., Abrevaya, J., & Scott-Morton, F. M. (1998) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/s0304-4076(98)00015-3 · Cited by 563
Abbring, J. H., & Heckman, J. J. (2007) · Handbook of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/s1573-4412(07)06072-2 · Cited by 122
Metadata
- Authors
- Cosslett, S. R.
- Venue
- Econometrica
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1983-05
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 765
- ISSN
- 0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2053770790
- Cited by
- 297
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
