“Fixed Effects, Rather Than Random Effects…” [Regulatives / Guidelines]
here's a paper that discusses the funky issue with fixed effects versus random effects.
In particular, who can come up with a quantitative relevant measure of the difference any estimator makes if you have two model alternatives?
One thing is of course to judge if estimate A is closer to the true value that estimator B, or if its variance is smaller, but another is to judge practical relevance. I was told that it is the latter that is of interest to the author.
Pass or fail!