Hi everyone,
I have problems in running cem which I believe is related to an error in
the installation procedure.
I installed cem using:
sysdir set PLUS "U:[folder location]ado\plus"
ssc install cem
When running cem i get the error message:
file U:[folder location]ado\plus/c/cem-mata.do not found
(error occurred while loading cem.ado)
But I checked: the file "cem-mata.do" is exactly at the location where
Stata is looking for it. Folder and file are named correctly and I can open
it. Everything seems fine with the file. I have no idea how to fix this.
Any help?
Thank you,
Anika
Dear Stefano and Gary,
Many thanks for your prompt responses. They have been very helpful.
All the best,
Cristian
Cristian Vaccari
Reader in Political Communication, Loughborough University
<http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/socialsciences/staff/cristian-vaccari/>
Brockington Building U.3.19
Epinal Way, Loughborough, LE11 3TU
Personal website: https://cristianvaccari.com/
Book reviews editor, International Journal of Press/Politics
<http://hij.sagepub.com/>
Research project: Social media and politics in comparative perspective
<http://www.webpoleu.net/>
Latest book: Digital Politics in Western Democracies: A Comparative Study
<http://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/ecom/MasterServlet/GetItemDetailsHandler?iN=…>
Google Scholar profile
<http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3_TethEAAAAJ&hl=en>
Twitter: @25lettori
<https://twitter.com/25lettori>
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Gary King <king(a)harvard.edu> wrote:
> Cristian, have a look at http://j.mp/CEMweights which explains the CEM
> weights. Like Stefano, I don't think it would make sense to run an analysis
> without the weights.
>
> Gary
> --
> *Gary King* - Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor - Director,
> IQSS <http://iq.harvard.edu/> - Harvard University
> GaryKing.org - King(a)Harvard.edu - @KingGary <https://twitter.com/kinggary> -
> 617-500-7570 - Assistant <king-assist(a)iq.harvard.edu>: 617-495-9271
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Cristian Vaccari <C.Vaccari(a)lboro.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I am using CEM in a paper based on survey data. The goal is to estimate
>> the relationship between exposure to political incivility on social media
>> and an index of political participation (a count of eight different
>> activities). After matching units based on a set of covariates, I run a
>> negative binomial regression using the weight calculated by CEM that
>> equalizes the number of treated and control units within each stratum.
>>
>> Among the feedback I have received on this paper has been the suggestion
>> that I should run the analysis on the CEM-matched units, but without using
>> the CEM-generated weight.
>>
>> I have tried running the analysis only on the matched units without using
>> the weight and the results are consistent with the analysis where I used
>> the weight, but it seems to me using the weights would be more appropriate.
>> Would anyone be able to comment on whether using the matched units but not
>> the weight is a sensible/acceptable idea or not?
>>
>> Many thanks for your help and for developing this great tool!
>>
>> Cristian
>>
>
>
Cristian, have a look at http://j.mp/CEMweights which explains the CEM
weights. Like Stefano, I don't think it would make sense to run an analysis
without the weights.
Gary
--
*Gary King* - Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor - Director,
IQSS <http://iq.harvard.edu/> - Harvard University
GaryKing.org - King(a)Harvard.edu - @KingGary <https://twitter.com/kinggary> -
617-500-7570 - Assistant <king-assist(a)iq.harvard.edu>: 617-495-9271
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Cristian Vaccari <C.Vaccari(a)lboro.ac.uk>
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am using CEM in a paper based on survey data. The goal is to estimate
> the relationship between exposure to political incivility on social media
> and an index of political participation (a count of eight different
> activities). After matching units based on a set of covariates, I run a
> negative binomial regression using the weight calculated by CEM that
> equalizes the number of treated and control units within each stratum.
>
> Among the feedback I have received on this paper has been the suggestion
> that I should run the analysis on the CEM-matched units, but without using
> the CEM-generated weight.
>
> I have tried running the analysis only on the matched units without using
> the weight and the results are consistent with the analysis where I used
> the weight, but it seems to me using the weights would be more appropriate.
> Would anyone be able to comment on whether using the matched units but not
> the weight is a sensible/acceptable idea or not?
>
> Many thanks for your help and for developing this great tool!
>
> Cristian
>
Dear all,
If you have survey data I suggest you considering also the sampling weights. Preliminary results of a Monte Carlo simulations (unpublished) suggests that they may matter.
Cesare Riillo
On Saturday, 17 March 2018, 17:00:20 CET, cem-request(a)lists.gking.harvard.edu <cem-request(a)lists.gking.harvard.edu> wrote:
Send Cem mailing list submissions to
cem(a)lists.gking.harvard.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.gking.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/cem
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cem-request(a)lists.gking.harvard.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
cem-owner(a)lists.gking.harvard.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Cem digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Using CEM without weights (Cristian Vaccari)
2. Re: Using CEM without weights (stefano iacus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:59:32 +0000
From: Cristian Vaccari <C.Vaccari(a)lboro.ac.uk>
To: <cem(a)lists.gking.harvard.edu>
Subject: [cem] Using CEM without weights
Message-ID:
<CANbKZGt_fds3CuaWb2BfU5xhY2GXFc3stfM-+MixZMY_pzcXzw(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Dear all,
I am using CEM in a paper based on survey data. The goal is to estimate the
relationship between exposure to political incivility on social media and
an index of political participation (a count of eight different
activities). After matching units based on a set of covariates, I run a
negative binomial regression using the weight calculated by CEM that
equalizes the number of treated and control units within each stratum.
Among the feedback I have received on this paper has been the suggestion
that I should run the analysis on the CEM-matched units, but without using
the CEM-generated weight.
I have tried running the analysis only on the matched units without using
the weight and the results are consistent with the analysis where I used
the weight, but it seems to me using the weights would be more appropriate.
Would anyone be able to comment on whether using the matched units but not
the weight is a sensible/acceptable idea or not?
Many thanks for your help and for developing this great tool!
Cristian
Dear all,
I am using CEM in a paper based on survey data. The goal is to estimate the
relationship between exposure to political incivility on social media and
an index of political participation (a count of eight different
activities). After matching units based on a set of covariates, I run a
negative binomial regression using the weight calculated by CEM that
equalizes the number of treated and control units within each stratum.
Among the feedback I have received on this paper has been the suggestion
that I should run the analysis on the CEM-matched units, but without using
the CEM-generated weight.
I have tried running the analysis only on the matched units without using
the weight and the results are consistent with the analysis where I used
the weight, but it seems to me using the weights would be more appropriate.
Would anyone be able to comment on whether using the matched units but not
the weight is a sensible/acceptable idea or not?
Many thanks for your help and for developing this great tool!
Cristian
