Tarefa crb_papers.q022

Veredito

Pergunta feita ao analista

By how much did the State Democracy Index change from 2010 to 2012 in states that newly gained unified Republican control in 2011 versus states that did not?

Como o agente resolveu e como foi validado

Resumo passo a passo do que o agente executou, por que o caminho está correto e como cada verificação conferiu o resultado.

1. 1Preparação da base de dados
   ds_0012— | Variable Name | Description | | --- | --- | | index | Sequential row identifier from the file export; included for reference and not used as a substantive measure. | | Republican | Binary indicator (0/1) for unified Republican control of state government in a given year. Equals 1 when the governorship and both legislative chambers were held by Republicans; 0 otherwise (including divided or other control). Compiled from state partisan balance data with updates from legislative tracking organizations. | | state | U.S. state name (50 states). | | year | Calendar year of observation (2000–2016). | | democracy_mcmc | Continuous State Democracy Index score for the state-year, estimated via Bayesian factor analysis (MCMC) from 51 state-level indicators of electoral rules, administrative performance, districting metrics, and related practices. The scale is approximately standardized across the panel (values can be negative or positive around zero); higher values indicate stronger electoral-democracy performance. Sources feeding the indicators include election administration data (e.g., MIT Election Lab), legislative policy compilations (e.g., NCSL), gerrymandering diagnostics, and measures of policy–opinion congruence. | Dataset Context: This file is a state–year panel that assembles administrative records, policy codings, and quantitative diagnostics to summarize how U.S. states structure and administer electoral democracy. The period 2000–2016 spans consequential developments in state election law and administration, including reforms that expanded access (e.g., early voting, online and same‑day registration, and the beginnings of automatic voter registration late in the period) and policies that increased participation costs for some voters (e.g., voter ID requirements). It also covers the 2010 redistricting cycle and subsequent evaluations of district plans using established gerrymandering metrics. During these years, federal–state relations affecting elections shifted as well, including changes to Voting Rights Act oversight after 2013, which altered how and where states implemented election-law changes. The State Democracy Index (reported here as democracy_mcmc) is constructed by combining 51 indicators into a single latent score using Bayesian factor analysis designed for mixed data types (binary, ordinal, and continuous). Indicator families include: election access rules (registration and voting modalities), administrative performance (e.g., wait times, provisional ballot handling, data completeness), post‑election audit requirements, districting fairness diagnostics (efficiency gap, partisan symmetry, declination, compactness), and measures of policy–opinion alignment. Indicator inputs draw on sources such as the MIT Election Lab’s compilations of election administration statistics, the National Conference of State Legislatures’ inventories of state election laws, quantitative assessments of district plans, and state policy–opinion datasets. Scores are standardized to facilitate comparison across states and years, with higher values reflecting stronger performance on these electoral-democracy dimensions. The unified-party-control variable is built from long‑running state partisan balance datasets and contemporary updates that track which party simultaneously held the governorship and majorities in both legislative chambers in each year. Together with state names and calendar years, these fields allow analysts to align institutional configurations with contemporaneous features of election law, administration, and districting captured in the index.
   ref_panel
   ref_post
   ref_pre
   ref_switch
2. 2Chamada que gerou a resposta finalinfer.ols(Regressão linear por mínimos quadrados ordinários (MQO))citada na resposta

   Ver chamada call_b4689fb9 nos detalhes

   Linha de base ingênua: regressão do resultado no tratamento, sem controles.

   Por que este é o caminho de referência: sm.OLS(y, add_constant([Tgroup, Post, DID])).fit(cov_type='cluster', groups=state) (CR1 errors with statsmodels' default G/(G-1)·(N-1)/(N-K) correction)
   Argumentos principais

   dataset:

   "ds_0012"

   intercept:

   true

   level:

   0,950.95

   se:

   "HC1"

   x:

   ["Republican"]

   y:

   "democracy_mcmc"

   Resultado calculado

   • coef.Republican = -0,810239 -0.8102391935440542
     Coefficient on Republican in the regression of democracy_mcmc
   Diagnósticos: n_obs = 833833 (observations used) · k = 22 (parameters estimated, fixed-effect dummies included) · r2 = 0,1694770.16947739786251625 · df_resid = 831831 · se_type = "HC1" (heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors (HC1))
3. 3Conferência de lastro e resposta final

   Todos os 1 números escritos na resposta foram conferidos contra as ferramentas e o enunciado (nenhum número sem lastro).

   Números encontrados: -0,8102
   Figuras citadas: call_b4689fb9:coef.Republican
   • ✓
     #0resposta com lastro

     every number traced to a tool call or the question
   • ✓
     #1figura da resposta próxima

     CRB estimate_within_solution_ci: the answer figure inside the gold 95% interval effect ± 1.96·|SE| of source crb_papers.q022.gold (closed, evaluate_result.py; no --auto-rescale)
   • ✗
     #2figura da resposta próxima

     replication cell: the gold effect to rel 1e-6 (abs floor 1e-6·SE); never required
   • ✗
     #3figura da resposta próxima

     replication cell: the gold SE to rel 1e-6; never required

Valores esperados e de onde vêm

Verificações

Caminho de referência e caminho do agente

A chamada de referência ao lado da chamada que deu a resposta, argumento por argumento.

Trajetória

Cada evento na ordem em que aconteceu: turnos do modelo, chamadas de ferramentas, guardas, transformações e pontuação.

1. 0Início

   By how much did the State Democracy Index change from 2010 to 2012 in states that newly gained unified Republican control in 2011 versus states that did not?

   ds_0012 (agent)

   | Variable Name | Description | | --- | --- | | index | Sequential row identifier from the file export; included for reference and not used as a substantive measure. | | Republican | Binary indicator (0/1) for unified Republican control of state government in a given year. Equals 1 when the governorship and both legislative chambers were held by Republicans; 0 otherwise (including divided or other control). Compiled from state partisan balance data with updates from legislative tracking organizations. | | state | U.S. state name (50 states). | | year | Calendar year of observation (2000–2016). | | democracy_mcmc | Continuous State Democracy Index score for the state-year, estimated via Bayesian factor analysis (MCMC) from 51 state-level indicators of electoral rules, administrative performance, districting metrics, and related practices. The scale is approximately standardized across the panel (values can be negative or positive around zero); higher values indicate stronger electoral-democracy performance. Sources feeding the indicators include election administration data (e.g., MIT Election Lab), legislative policy compilations (e.g., NCSL), gerrymandering diagnostics, and measures of policy–opinion congruence. | Dataset Context: This file is a state–year panel that assembles administrative records, policy codings, and quantitative diagnostics to summarize how U.S. states structure and administer electoral democracy. The period 2000–2016 spans consequential developments in state election law and administration, including reforms that expanded access (e.g., early voting, online and same‑day registration, and the beginnings of automatic voter registration late in the period) and policies that increased participation costs for some voters (e.g., voter ID requirements). It also covers the 2010 redistricting cycle and subsequent evaluations of district plans using established gerrymandering metrics. During these years, federal–state relations affecting elections shifted as well, including changes to Voting Rights Act oversight after 2013, which altered how and where states implemented election-law changes. The State Democracy Index (reported here as democracy_mcmc) is constructed by combining 51 indicators into a single latent score using Bayesian factor analysis designed for mixed data types (binary, ordinal, and continuous). Indicator families include: election access rules (registration and voting modalities), administrative performance (e.g., wait times, provisional ballot handling, data completeness), post‑election audit requirements, districting fairness diagnostics (efficiency gap, partisan symmetry, declination, compactness), and measures of policy–opinion alignment. Indicator inputs draw on sources such as the MIT Election Lab’s compilations of election administration statistics, the National Conference of State Legislatures’ inventories of state election laws, quantitative assessments of district plans, and state policy–opinion datasets. Scores are standardized to facilitate comparison across states and years, with higher values reflecting stronger performance on these electoral-democracy dimensions. The unified-party-control variable is built from long‑running state partisan balance datasets and contemporary updates that track which party simultaneously held the governorship and majorities in both legislative chambers in each year. Together with state names and calendar years, these fields allow analysts to align institutional configurations with contemporaneous features of election law, administration, and districting captured in the index.

   file c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0 · frame —

   ref_panel (reference)

   file c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0 · frame —

   1. select {"columns":["Republican","state","year","democracy_mcmc"]}
   2. dropna {"columns":["state","year","Republican","democracy_mcmc"]}
   3. filter {"query":"year in [2010, 2012]"}
   4. merge {"how":"left","on":["state"],"with":"ref_switch"}
   5. merge {"how":"inner","on":["state"],"with":"ref_pre"}
   6. merge {"how":"inner","on":["state"],"with":"ref_post"}
   7. filter {"query":"r_pre == 0 and ((syear == 2011 and r_post == 1) or ((syear != syear or syear > 2012) and r_post == 0))"}
   8. derive {"args":{"cmp":"eq","column":"r_post","value":1},"name":"Tgroup","op":"indicator"}
   9. derive {"args":{"cmp":"eq","column":"year","value":2012},"name":"Post","op":"indicator"}
   10. derive {"args":{"columns":["Tgroup","Post"]},"name":"DID","op":"interaction"}

   ref_post (reference)

   file c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0 · frame —

   1. select {"columns":["Republican","state","year","democracy_mcmc"]}
   2. dropna {"columns":["state","year","Republican","democracy_mcmc"]}
   3. filter {"query":"year == 2012"}
   4. select {"columns":["state","Republican"]}
   5. rename {"map":{"Republican":"r_post"}}

   ref_pre (reference)

   file c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0 · frame —

   1. select {"columns":["Republican","state","year","democracy_mcmc"]}
   2. dropna {"columns":["state","year","Republican","democracy_mcmc"]}
   3. filter {"query":"year == 2010"}
   4. select {"columns":["state","Republican"]}
   5. rename {"map":{"Republican":"r_pre"}}

   ref_switch (reference)

   file c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0 · frame —

   1. select {"columns":["Republican","state","year","democracy_mcmc"]}
   2. dropna {"columns":["state","year","Republican","democracy_mcmc"]}
   3. derive {"args":{"by":["state"],"column":"Republican","order":["year"],"periods":1},"name":"r_prev","op":"lag"}
   4. filter {"query":"Republican == 1 and r_prev == 0"}
   5. collapse {"aggs":[{"column":"year","fn":"min","name":"syear"}],"by":["state"]}
2. 1Turno do modelo
   call_eb709a5enaive-olsFim: tool_use0 ms0 de entrada · 0 de saída · 0 de raciocínio · 0 em cache

   Texto visível

   Linha de base ingênua: regressão do resultado no tratamento, sem controles.

   Chamadas pedidas

   • infer.ols

     {
       "dataset": "ds_0012",
       "x": [
         "Republican"
       ],
       "y": "democracy_mcmc"
     }

   Mensagens (formato neutro)Instruções do sistemaFerramentas oferecidas
3. 2Ferramenta
   infer.ols— Regressão linear por mínimos quadrados ordinários (MQO)v0.1.0call_b4689fb9decidido pelo modeloreexecutável

   Motivo: Linha de base ingênua: regressão do resultado no tratamento, sem controles.

   Argumentos

   {
     "cluster": null,
     "controls": [],
     "dataset": "ds_0012",
     "fe": [],
     "intercept": true,
     "level": 0.95,
     "se": "HC1",
     "subset": null,
     "weights": null,
     "x": [
       "Republican"
     ],
     "y": "democracy_mcmc"
   }

   Figuras call_b4689fb9

   Chave	Valor	Valor bruto	Erro-padrão	IC
   coef.Republican Coefficient on Republican in the regression of democracy_mcmc	-0,810239	-0.8102391935440542	0,0706120.07061197387291988	-0,948838 – -0,67164

   Diagnósticos

   • n_obs = 833833 (observations used)
   • k = 22 (parameters estimated, fixed-effect dummies included)
   • r2 = 0,1694770.16947739786251625
   • df_resid = 831831
   • se_type = "HC1" (heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors (HC1))
   • n_clusters = — (errors not clustered)

   Derivação matemática e pressupostos

   coef.Republican

   1. Coeficiente de Republican na regressão por mínimos quadrados ordinários de democracy_mcmc.→ -0,810239 (-0.8102391935440542)
   2. Erro-padrão robusto à heterocedasticidade (HC1): a raiz da variância estimada do coeficiente.ep = √V_jj→ 0,070612 (0.07061197387291988)
   3. Intervalo de 95% de confiança: a estimativa mais ou menos o valor crítico da distribuição t de Student com 831 graus de liberdade vezes o erro-padrão.IC = β ± c · ep

   Pressupostos do estimador

   • the conditional mean of the outcome is linear in the regressors
   • errors are independent across observations; their variance may differ

   Tabelas (1)

   {
     "coefficients": [
       {
         "ci_high": 0.32846289276375057,
         "ci_low": 0.20951703481464037,
         "coef": 0.2689899637891955,
         "p": 4.1451826913649454e-18,
         "se": 0.03029969344550972,
         "t": 8.877646378599207,
         "term": "Intercept"
       },
       {
         "ci_high": -0.6716404016305455,
         "ci_low": -0.9488379854575628,
         "coef": -0.8102391935440542,
         "p": 2.1433815010101494e-28,
         "se": 0.07061197387291988,
         "t": -11.47452973064085,
         "term": "Republican"
       }
     ]
   }

   Hashes SHA-256 e metadados de reprodução

   Digests dos dados

   ds_0012 5bc3cfb33d7015ef69f405f7a413176b19165dd8a84304cbc15597025a3680f8

   sha256 do resultado

   6df775a10a26d9b19a9d25f5beba730e1e8b972c734a3b6af6cdb85b7a179d48

   Resultado mostrado ao modelo
4. 3Turno do modelo
   call_39d26f61naive-olsFim: tool_use0 ms0 de entrada · 0 de saída · 0 de raciocínio · 0 em cache

   Chamadas pedidas

   • submit_answer (meta-ferramenta)

     {
       "answer": "Estimativa ingênua (infer.ols): coef.Republican = -0,8102.",
       "caveats": [],
       "figure_refs": [
         "call_b4689fb9:coef.Republican"
       ]
     }

   Mensagens (formato neutro)Instruções do sistemaFerramentas oferecidas
5. 4Guarda
   resposta aceita

   Números encontrados

   -0,8102

   Sem lastro

   —

   Não citados

   —

   1 nova(s) tentativa(s) restante(s)
6. 5Resposta

   Estimativa ingênua (infer.ols): coef.Republican = -0,8102.

   Figuras citadas: call_b4689fb9:coef.Republican · Parada: answered

   Figura da resposta: call_b4689fb9:coef.Republican = -0,810239-0.8102391935440542 (se 0,0706120.07061197387291988)
7. 6Pontuação
   #0resposta com lastropassouobrigatóriaevery number backed
8. 7Pontuação
   #1figura da resposta próximapassouobrigatória-0.8102391935 in [-1.753699972, -0.285031502]?
9. 8Pontuação
   #2figura da resposta próximafalhouregistrada-0.8102391935 vs -1.0193657368631843
10. 9Pontuação
    #3figura da resposta próximafalhouregistrada0.07061197387 vs 0.3746603238881578

Épocas × verificações

Tentativas

Cada tentativa é seu próprio arquivo e é publicada; só a última de cada época é pontuada.

• época 1, tentativa 1passoupontuada(exibindo)

Downloads desta tarefa