Bookmark and Share

Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: Dyadic fixed effects and areg, absorb

From   emanuele mazzini <>
Subject   Re: st: Dyadic fixed effects and areg, absorb
Date   Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:23:00 +0200

That's a good suggestion,
Thank you very much for your advice.


2011/4/15 Nick Cox <>:
> Sorry, but I don't know -- or shouldn't say even if I did. I don't
> even know if this is trade, migration, conflicts or anything else, and
> none of those are my field. That's surely a matter for you to seek
> advice from your supervisor/advisor if you have one, or the
> literature.
> Supposedly, John von Neumann said "With four parameters I can fit an
> elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." I know
> software makes it much easier to fit complicated models than whenever
> he (may have) said that, but more complicated models are not
> necessarily better.
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:06 PM, emanuele mazzini
> <> wrote:
>> Well, I have to say I am a student willing to get a degree (i.e I am
>> doing such a research for my final thesis). I asked that because I
>> know that some authors use that and insert in their regressions both
>> dyadic and year fixed effects. Obviously it is a kind of robustness
>> check, so I do not necessarily expect my main variables to be
>> statistically significant but if they do, I can say that result are
>> definitely robust, aren't they?
>> Since you suggested a more parsimonious model, what would it be? What
>> kind of fixed effects would you insert in such a regression?
>> Thank you very much,
>> Regards,
>> Emanuele.
>> 2011/4/15 Nick Cox <>:
>>> It starts sounding like a statistical equivalent of a rather empty
>>> model. If I say, interactions between countries over time depend on
>>> precisely which countries and precisely when, the reaction to those
>>> words is, Well, yes. If you say, and here are thousands of parameters
>>> to summarize that, how is that scientifically or practically
>>> interesting or useful?
>>> I don't know what your overall objective is. Are you a student and you
>>> want to pass an examination or to get  a degree? Are you a researcher
>>> and you want a publishable paper? Either way, as you ask for
>>> reactions, mine is that I would expect anyone in your friend to be
>>> more interested in a much more parsimonious model.
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:31 PM, emanuele mazzini
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> Dear all Stata users,
>>>> I am trying to work out a regression with an unbalanced bilateral
>>>> panel dataset in which I need to include both dyadic fixed effects and
>>>> year fixed effects. Since my dataset is very huge (it includes more
>>>> than 600,000 observations) and I cannot generate a dummy for the
>>>> variable dyads (which is the unique dyads identifier), I thought that
>>>> I can accomplish this by using the following command:
>>>> areg...., absorb(dyads)
>>>> by including only the dummies that refer to the years to take into
>>>> account the year fixed effects, while absorb(dyads) is supposed to
>>>> take into account the dyadic fixed effects.
>>>> I am not looking really for an help, but more for an advice: what do
>>>> you think about this solution to my problem (i.e. to the impossibility
>>>> to generate more than 15,000 dummies)? Do you think this may work?
>>>> Thanks to all of you in advance for your time and consideration,
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *
> *
> *

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2018 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index