Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30395626›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Choice modelling with Gaussian processes in the social sciences: A case study of neighbourhood choice in Stockholm.

Richard P Mann, Viktoria Spaiser, Lina Hedman, David J T Sumpter

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Collective decision-making by rational agents with differing preferences.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Richard P MannDepartment of Statistics, School of Mathematics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0701-1274
Viktoria SpaiserSchool of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Lina HedmanInstitute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
David J T SumpterDepartment of Mathematics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
University of Leeds · GBUppsala University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present a non-parametric extension of the conditional logit model, using Gaussian process priors. The conditional logit model is used in quantitative social science for inferring interaction effects between personal features and choice characteristics from observations of individual multinomial decisions, such as where to live, which car to buy or which school to choose. The classic, parametric model presupposes a latent utility function that is a linear combination of choice characteristics and their interactions with personal features. This imposes strong and unrealistic constraints on the form of individuals' preferences. Extensions using non-linear basis functions derived from the original features can ameliorate this problem but at the cost of high model complexity and increased reliance on the user in model specification. In this paper we develop a non-parametric conditional logit model based on Gaussian process logit models. We demonstrate its application on housing choice data from over 50,000 moving households from the Stockholm area over a two year period to reveal complex homophilic patterns in income, ethnicity and parental status.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorResidence CharacteristicsAdultAgedChildFemaleHousingHumansLogistic ModelsMaleModels, PsychologicalModels, StatisticalNormal DistributionSchoolsSocial SciencesSocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID30395626
PMCPMC6218057
OpenAlexW2899633676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.