Bias and Methodological Change in Economic Sanction Reconsidered
<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|> You are a research archivist expert in dataset metadata. Answer the question truthfully.  <|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|> Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'The authors investigate the influence of case selection and (re)coding for two vintages of a key resource for research on economic sanctions: the Peterson Institute data base reported in Hufbauer et al. (2nd edition in 1990 and 3rd edition in 2007). The Peterson Institute has not reported transparently on these changes. At the level of individual case studies the authors uncover a tendency to inflate success scores, reclassifying failures into successes even when the evidence for doing so was not convincing. At the level of the aggregated case studies and general methodology they uncover positive bias (that is: methodological changes that make it more likely to find sanction success as indicated by a higher success score, either on average or in individual cases): splitting of episodes into cases and the changed definition of sanction c' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|> {"Answer" : ["bias","Peterson Institute","replication","sanctions"]} <|eot_id|>
 Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'The authors investigate the influence of case selection and (re)coding for two vintages of a key resource for research on economic sanctions: the Peterson Institute data base reported in Hufbauer et al. (2nd edition in 1990 and 3rd edition in 2007). The Peterson Institute has not reported transparently on these changes. At the level of individual case studies the authors uncover a tendency to inflate success scores, reclassifying failures into successes even when the evidence for doing so was not convincing. At the level of the aggregated case studies and general methodology they uncover positive bias (that is: methodological changes that make it more likely to find sanction success as indicated by a higher success score, either on average or in individual cases): splitting of episodes into cases and the changed definition of sanction c' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.
The authors investigate the influence of case selection and (re)coding for two vintages of a key resource for research on economic sanctions: the Peterson Institute data base reported in Hufbauer et al. (2nd edition in 1990 and 3rd edition in 2007). The Peterson Institute has not reported transparently on these changes. At the level of individual case studies the authors uncover a tendency to inflate success scores, reclassifying failures into successes even when the evidence for doing so was not convincing. At the level of the aggregated case studies and general methodology they uncover positive bias (that is: methodological changes that make it more likely to find sanction success as indicated by a higher success score, either on average or in individual cases): splitting of episodes into cases and the changed definition of sanction c
bias; Peterson Institute; replication; sanctions