q: Does an aggregate-pool conservation check hold: do total mission-linked publications and total distinct first-author teams across ALL Earth missions (open plus restricted) rise after each adoption wave, or is the positive ATT(g,t) exactly offset by a decline on the restricted control missions over the same calendar periods (pure reallocation)?

facet: identification

raised_by: ackoff

priority: high

query_terms: open data citation advantage aggregate effect

query_terms: publication reallocation versus expansion bibliometric

query_terms: ADS Web of Science total Earth science publication count trend

query_terms: displacement effect scientific output policy

status: open


q: Did unique authors and unique institutions ENTER Earth-science publishing after open release (genuine community expansion), or did existing authors re-sort across missions (the mission being the wrong unit for the productivity question)?

facet: measurement

query_terms: new entrant authors open data remote sensing

query_terms: institutional entry scientific publishing open access

query_terms: researcher-level versus mission-level unit of analysis bibliometrics

query_terms: community formation open Earth observation data


q: What pre-registered joint pattern (open-mission distribution UP and matched restricted-mission distribution DOWN) is accepted as falsifying expansion in favor of displacement, and are DAAC/Earthdata logs scoped to the control missions over the same window so the download mechanism check can distinguish growth from substitution?

facet: empirics

query_terms: DAAC distribution log control mission scope

query_terms: download substitution versus expansion test

query_terms: Earthdata distribution volume restricted mission

query_terms: falsifier displacement scientific data reuse


q: Does the post-adoption break collapse toward zero in mission-period cells lacking mature DAAC ingest, DOI minting, and a nontrivial pre-existing user community, in which case the recommendation is 'build the archive' not 'go open'?

priority: normal

query_terms: persistent identifier DOI dataset citation effect

query_terms: curation infrastructure open data benefit conditional

query_terms: containing system apparatus open release


q: What are the calibrated stratum-level preconditions (minimum community size, curation-maturity level, citable-identifier capability) an analyst must verify in a NEW containing system (no-DAAC agency, commercial regime, foreign archive) before the open-release recommendation transports there?

facet: rival

query_terms: open data benefit preconditions transportability

query_terms: minimum user community size threshold data reuse

query_terms: curation maturity level external validity

query_terms: bounded conditional open data policy recommendation


q: Is the null-yield containing-system condition checkable in the assembled panel, i.e. do the data resolve distinct downloading institutions per mission-period and a measurable sensor-class community size so the access-cost-not-binding falsifier can be executed?

facet: mechanism

query_terms: distinct downloading institutions DAAC log

query_terms: binding constraint diagnostic access cost

query_terms: sensor class user community size measure


q: What is the pre-registered evidence that adoption timing is NOT chosen in anticipation of the measured outcome, specifically a first-stage regression of each mission's pre-adoption publication slope on observable anticipated-demand proxies (preceding distribution-log growth, community size, product-maturity level)?

query_terms: no anticipation test difference in differences

query_terms: selection on expected trend adoption timing

query_terms: anticipated demand proxy pre-trend regression


q: For how many (g,t) cells does the clean matched not-yet-treated control pool fall to one or zero missions, and what is the pre-registered bright-line rule (drop ATT(g,t) whose clean matched control pool < k, weight zero in the aggregate) for declaring a cell uninterpretable before aggregation?

query_terms: Callaway Sant'Anna clean comparison group count

query_terms: aggregation weight uninterpretable cell threshold

status: partial


q: Can a placebo ATT(g,t) on a NON-mission-linked Earth-science publication count over the same sensor-class strata and calendar window, built from ADS/WoS coverage metadata, show the index-coverage expansion nets to zero across treated and clean-control groups rather than masquerading as the open-data effect (especially differential coverage growth across sensor-class strata)?

query_terms: ADS Web of Science coverage expansion bias

query_terms: differential index growth by subfield bibliometric

query_terms: non-mission-linked publication count placebo DiD


q: Under the simple group-size, dynamic event-time, and calendar aggregation schemes, what per-cohort weights does each assign, and are the sign and magnitude of the overall effect stable, or do one or two heavily-weighted early cohorts (Landsat-class) carry the headline?

query_terms: Callaway Sant'Anna aggregation scheme weights

query_terms: calendar versus dynamic weighting event study


q: With a near-universal absorbing SMD open-release policy, is the never-treated pool empty or non-comparable, and against exactly which control units is the final cohort's ATT(g,t) identified (report never-treated counts, their pre-period output trajectory vs treated, and trim the right tail where lags rest on thin not-yet-treated comparisons)?

query_terms: absorbing treatment never-treated pool DiD

query_terms: not-yet-treated comparison last cohort identification

query_terms: right tail event study thin control trimming

query_terms: near-universal adoption staggered design


q: On which parallel-trends scale (levels vs proportional/log-link) is the claim made, and are the pre-period leads flat on THAT scale, so the sensor-class heterogeneity result is not a functional-form scale artifact?

query_terms: parallel trends functional form sensitivity scale

query_terms: Roth Sant'Anna parallel trends levels logs

query_terms: scale artifact heterogeneity difference in differences


q: Where does the design measure the user-side transaction cost directly (time to discover, register, obtain, ingest, reach analysis-ready; time-to-first-publication after first access; support-ticket volume; processing-level at release) rather than inferring it from the binary license label, and does it show that cost fell at the adoption date?

raised_by: coase

query_terms: time to analysis ready data transaction cost measure

query_terms: processing level at release data reuse cost

query_terms: time to first publication after data access

query_terms: user-side access cost direct measurement Earth observation


q: Can the candidate identify at least one mission where going open coincided with a drop in product-processing level, loss of funded user-support, or removal of curation, and show whether the event-study coefficient there is negative or null (the falsifying reciprocal case where openness raised the effective cost of reuse)?

query_terms: open release curation withdrawal reuse cost

query_terms: funded user support removal data repository

query_terms: negative null treatment effect service removal


q: Which mission-level cost data (DAAC operating cost, curation labor, infrastructure spend per mission-period) will be brought onto the same ledger as the citation gain so a positive ATT can be shown to be a net welfare improvement rather than gross usage a more expensive institution purchased?

facet: economics

query_terms: curation labor cost data repository ledger

query_terms: net welfare versus gross benefit open data

query_terms: cost-benefit open data infrastructure NASA


q: Per mission-period, who is the least-cost avoider of residual access friction, and can the post-adoption citation rise be shown (via Earthdata/DAAC logs plus the frozen linkage rule) to track mission-side friction reductions rather than users absorbing more search-and-ingest cost themselves?

query_terms: least cost avoider access friction reciprocal

query_terms: mission-side friction reduction citation

query_terms: search and ingest cost downstream researcher


q: Can a typology of restricted regimes (funded support desks, brokered/intermediary distribution, commercial value-added resellers) be built from the hand-coded register and ATT estimated against the LOWEST-friction restricted comparator rather than the pooled control, to test whether open beats a real alternative or only beats neglect?

query_terms: restricted data regime typology comparator

query_terms: lowest friction feasible alternative comparison

query_terms: value-added reseller brokered data distribution

query_terms: comparative institutional ATT non-pooled control


q: Using distribution logs against adoption dates, can the share of post-adoption access flowing through mission/DAAC-hosted channels versus third-party intermediaries be measured and the citation break attributed to the internalized (hierarchy) versus the market (intermediary) channel?

query_terms: distribution channel split DAAC third-party

query_terms: make versus buy data distribution channel

query_terms: cloud-hosted analysis platform reuse share

query_terms: intermediary transaction cost reduction attribution


q: Does the placebo-on-never-treated series (mission-linked publication and dataset-citation counts for a fixed never-treated cohort, re-harvested from successive ADS/WoS index vintages) move, and is its slope distinguishable from the post-adoption lags, isolating coverage/data-citation-norm drift inside the indexing database from the treatment?

raised_by: kuznets

query_terms: never-treated placebo re-harvest index vintage

query_terms: citation database backfill coverage drift


q: What is the coverage definition and gross/net netting rule for the Earthdata/DAAC distribution count (which download events are gross, which are netted as duplicate/bot/re-pull), is the log series continuous across the policy date, and does the pre-publication distribution break survive netting of bot and machine-to-machine traffic rather than being a logging-instrumentation artifact co-timed with adoption?

query_terms: download event netting bot machine-to-machine

query_terms: distribution log coverage boundary definition

query_terms: logging instrumentation change co-timed treatment

query_terms: gross net distribution count continuity policy date


q: Per matched sensor-class stratum, how many treated missions versus genuinely never-treated controls, and what share of the aggregated ATT is carried by the optical-imager stratum alone, so a 'multi-mission identified estimate' is not one Landsat-class natural experiment in a difference-in-differences coat?

query_terms: per stratum treated control mission count

query_terms: Landsat dominance pooled estimate concentration


q: Using the McMillan-Rodrik within/reallocation identity on the count outcome, how much of the post-adoption rise is real expansion of the production boundary versus re-attribution of existing publishing activity from never-/not-yet-treated missions, and does the control-pool sign pattern show conservation (re-attribution) or true expansion?

query_terms: within reallocation decomposition McMillan Rodrik

query_terms: conservation identity publication count expansion

query_terms: re-attribution cross-mission publishing churn

query_terms: control pool sign pattern boundary expansion


q: Is measurement error in mission-linked citations correlated with treatment because a mission going open at calendar T is observed at a different point in its datasets' citation-accrual curve than a control at the same event time, and what netting rule (age-alignment plus pre-trend accrual differencing) removes the accrual-lag component from the level break?

query_terms: measurement error proxy correlated treatment


q: Report a value-weighted or distinct-contributor-weighted outcome (raw count, distinct first-author teams, distinct institutions) alongside the raw count, and pre-specify the divergence (gross-to-distinct ratio climbing post-treatment) accepted as evidence the raw count overstates the welfare gain by drawing in low-marginal-value, redundant, or duplicative uses.

query_terms: distinct contributor weighted publication outcome

query_terms: gross output value added netting bibliometric

query_terms: redundant duplicative use welfare overstatement

query_terms: distinct institution distinct first author series


q: State the loss function: what dollar value or marginal scientific finding does one additional mission-linked paper/citation represent, what threshold effect size on the event-study path is too small to justify open-release infrastructure, and what is the breakeven publications-per-DAAC-dollar against curation costs?

raised_by: mccloskey

query_terms: loss function value per scientific publication

query_terms: breakeven publications per dollar data infrastructure

query_terms: shadow price marginal scientific finding

query_terms: substantive versus statistical significance effect size threshold


q: Which of the three defenses (frozen matching rule, no-prior-affiliation cut, distribution logs) distinguishes a paper that would not exist absent open release from one that would have existed but now names the mission because citation became easier, and is there a held-out separating test (e.g. a placebo on missions that adopted a data-citation norm with no access-cost change)?

query_terms: data citation norm placebo access cost separation

query_terms: attribution shift versus access shift bibliometric


q: What panel observable distinguishes 'open release enlarged the user community' from 'open release let the already-large community publish more' (the incumbent-friendly-standard reading), and does the policy recommendation survive if the effect concentrates in missions that were already publication-rich?

query_terms: new entrant versus incumbent intensification open data

query_terms: incumbent-friendly standard barrier to entry

query_terms: publication-rich mission effect concentration

query_terms: entry versus intensification decomposition Earth observation


q: Name the estimand against the mandate counterfactual: does the prospectus state whether the target is the selected-adopter effect (ATT on the willing vanguard) or a population-average / marginal-adopter / policy-relevant treatment effect, and on what authority does an ATT on self-selected adopters get recommended as evidence for a mandate on the unwilling?

query_terms: policy relevant treatment effect mandate counterfactual

query_terms: Heckman Vytlacil policy relevant parameter

query_terms: selected adopter effect mandate extrapolation


q: Compute the breakeven publications-per-DAAC-dollar on the marginal unit (the thinnest, latest-adopting, least-publication-rich strata and small-community sensor classes), and report whether the benefit-over-cost ratio that justifies a mandate survives on the marginal adopter rather than the flattering pooled average.

query_terms: marginal adopter return open data mandate

query_terms: small community sensor class effect cost

query_terms: benefit cost ratio marginal versus average


q: Can the design produce a treatment-effect-versus-baseline-propensity gradient (MTE / continuous-DiD on pre-adoption distinct-user count, product-maturity, prior publication stock) with adequate power on tens of missions, and does the resulting marginal-mission bound overturn the mandate recommendation, or does the design average the gradient away?

query_terms: marginal treatment effect baseline propensity gradient

query_terms: continuous treatment difference in differences dose

query_terms: effect versus pre-adoption community size

query_terms: power thin matching pool gradient estimation


q: Does the register contain a non-empty set of license-only missions (access license flipped but discoverability and tooling unchanged) so the event-study coefficient is attributable to the access-cost rule rather than a co-bundled organizational build-out?

raised_by: north

query_terms: license only change discoverability unchanged

query_terms: access rule versus organizational buildout separation

query_terms: license flip tooling identifier decomposition


q: Supply a DIRECT cardinal per-mission transaction-cost metric (fee schedule in dollars, registration step count, license-negotiation latency, time-to-first-byte for an unaffiliated user) coded under status quo and reform, and regress event-study coefficient magnitude on that metered cost-drop rather than the ordinal four-class prior-regime contrast.

query_terms: cardinal transaction cost metric per mission

query_terms: dose response metered cost drop effect size


q: Produce per-mission de-jure (policy adoption) versus de-facto (date an unaffiliated user could obtain analysis-ready data without registration, fee, or missing tooling) dates, and show the event-study coefficient path survives re-anchoring to the de-facto rule-change date if the two diverge by a year or more for a material share of missions.

query_terms: rule in use versus announcement institution


q: Classify which missions adopt open release early vs late by the institutional position of their sponsoring organization (PI-team incumbency, DAAC operator, commercial-data contract, international data-sharing obligation), and test whether selection on organizational rule-making power, not access cost, is what the matched-on-sensor-class-and-age design leaves uncontrolled.

query_terms: adoption timing endogenous organizational position

query_terms: incumbent intermediary selection adoption late

query_terms: sponsor institutional position covariate

query_terms: rule-making power selection difference in differences


q: Show from DAAC distribution logs and license records that 'restricted' control missions did not undergo partial informal liberalization (de-facto open via mirror archives, third-party redistribution, relaxed enforcement) that would contaminate the parallel-trends comparison and bias the ATT toward zero.

query_terms: restricted control informal liberalization leakage

query_terms: mirror archive third-party redistribution enforcement

query_terms: control contamination attenuation toward zero

query_terms: operative rule versus label control group


q: Construct an ex-ante ordinal governance-bundle index (boundary/metadata provenance, attribution/data-citation enforcement, curation/usage-log monitoring, graduated handling of non-conforming reuse, nested DAAC-to-directorate authority) per mission-period and run a horse-race showing whether the event-study effect is driven by the license-change flag alone or by the curation-and-attribution bundle that moved with it.

raised_by: ostrom

query_terms: governance bundle ordinal index horse race

query_terms: license flag versus curation attribution bundle

query_terms: Ostrom design principles data commons coding

query_terms: FAIR status attribution enforcement covariate


q: Using Earthdata/DAAC logs against the date each mission's datasets received citable persistent identifiers (DOIs), separate a distribution-led access-cost (North) effect from a DOI-led attribution (Ostrom monitoring) effect via the joint timing of the distribution break, the DOI-issuance date, and the citation break; and confirm the no-prior-affiliation specification isolates new impersonal use rather than only the attribution-enforceable subset.

query_terms: dataset DOI issuance date distribution break timing

query_terms: access cost versus attribution monitoring mechanism

query_terms: impersonal use attribution enforceable subset


q: From DAAC user-registration or distribution-account records, measure whether the appropriator (user) community was already organized before the open transition or constituted alongside it (DAAC user-services, working groups, applications program), and re-run the event study controlling for community-formation timing to separate the effect of openness from the effect of a community being convened around the data.

query_terms: user community formation timing DAAC registration

query_terms: appropriator community pre-organized openness


q: Construct a provision-side measure per mission-period (curation/support staffing, reprocessing cadence, distribution-cost-per-download) from the Earthdata/DAAC ledger and test whether the post-adoption publication rise is bounded or eroded where provision capacity did not scale with appropriation, rather than coding 'open' as a frictionless terminal state.

query_terms: provision side curation staffing measure DAAC

query_terms: reprocessing cadence distribution cost per download

query_terms: appropriation provision congestion data commons

query_terms: provision capacity scaling publication bound


q: Build an ordinal rules-in-use index of the institutional bundle per mission-period (license terms, persistent-identifier tooling, DAAC discoverability/support norms, third-party brokers) from DAAC docs, FAIR-status coding and license records, and show the treated-vs-control ATT is driven by the appropriation-cost rule named rather than co-varying monitoring/tooling/intermediary institutions the binary subsumes.

query_terms: appropriation cost rule versus tooling intermediary

query_terms: binary treatment confounded institutions


q: From the adoption-date register plus COPUOS/SMD policy provenance, code each adoption as self-organized (collective-choice) versus externally imposed (directorate-wide SMD mandate) and estimate the ATT separately, to see whether the yield comes from the access-cost change or from a pre-existing organized appropriator community capable of acting on it.

query_terms: self-organized versus imposed adoption provenance

query_terms: adoption provenance exchangeability falsification


q: Produce from the SMD Scientific Information Policy record and the register the count of externally-compelled (exogenous mandate: directorate cutoff, budget cycle, archive-migration schedule) versus operator-chosen adoptions, so the design has an a-priori exogeneity source rather than a flat-leads robustness check on a confound it never broke.

query_terms: compelled versus operator-chosen adoption register

query_terms: SMD Scientific Information Policy mandate cutoff

query_terms: design-stage exogeneity selection on trends


q: How many distinct calendar adoption dates exist in the register, and what share of treated missions cluster on the single SMD-policy date versus idiosyncratic mission dates, so the staggered DiD does not collapse to a disguised one-shot interrupted time series confounded by a directorate-level history threat?

query_terms: distinct calendar adoption date dispersion

query_terms: staggered DiD collapse interrupted time series

query_terms: directorate policy common shock clustering


q: Does the distribution-log break match the publication break in magnitude and timing per mission, and on what fraction of missions do Earthdata/DAAC logs actually exist BEFORE the adoption date so the convergence check is feasible rather than asserted (a per-mission pre-adoption log-availability inventory)?

query_terms: pre-adoption DAAC log availability inventory

query_terms: distribution break publication break match per mission

query_terms: convergent operationalization feasibility download log

query_terms: instrumentation drift control series feasibility


q: State the explicit UTOS domain of validity as a populated two-column ledger built from the register and DAAC documentation, after adding the missing register fields (latency tier, ITAR/dual-use restriction class, agency/partner), assigning each mission to a column, and reporting which subpopulations the corpus actually contains observations for versus those conceded off-support.

query_terms: UTOS domain of validity two-column ledger

query_terms: on-support off-support subpopulation count

query_terms: external validity transportability NASA Earth science


q: From the executed by-sensor-class ATT(g,t) table, does the effect SIGN flip across strata or does MAGNITUDE vary by more than the pre-registered Rambachan-Roth breakdown threshold, and what is the optical-imager stratum's share of treated missions and of pooled-ATT weight (the test of whether the pooled estimate is a stratum-specific result in a pooled costume)?

query_terms: Rambachan Roth breakdown threshold heterogeneity

query_terms: stratum-specific result pooled estimate transport


q: Add ITAR/dual-use restriction-class and real-time-operational latency-tier as named, codable register exclusion axes so the localness concession for classified and real-time-operational archives is converted from an implicit hedge into an explicit, register-grounded boundary statement with a falsifying observable.

query_terms: ITAR dual-use restriction class register axis

query_terms: real-time operational latency tier exclusion

query_terms: explicit codable boundary classified archive

query_terms: surface similarity falsifying observable transport