{"args":{},"checks":[{"abs_tol":null,"bind":"any","column":null,"failure_class":null,"field":"value","interval":false,"key":null,"kind":"answer_backed","min_lre":null,"note":"every number traced to a tool call or the question","open_interval":false,"rel_tol":null,"required":true,"source_id":null,"table":null,"tool":null,"value":null,"weight":1.0,"where":null},{"abs_tol":null,"bind":"answer_call","column":null,"failure_class":null,"field":"value","interval":true,"key":null,"kind":"answer_figure_close","min_lre":null,"note":"CRB estimate_within_solution_ci: the answer figure inside the gold 95% interval effect \u00b1 1.96\u00b7|SE| of source crb_papers.q007.gold (closed, evaluate_result.py; no --auto-rescale)","open_interval":false,"rel_tol":null,"required":true,"source_id":null,"table":null,"tool":null,"value":[0.018835339085926786,0.18233825749770866],"weight":1.0,"where":null},{"abs_tol":4.170992816627088e-08,"bind":"answer_call","column":null,"failure_class":null,"field":"value","interval":false,"key":null,"kind":"answer_figure_close","min_lre":null,"note":"replication cell: the gold effect to rel 1e-6 (abs floor 1e-6\u00b7SE); never required","open_interval":false,"rel_tol":1e-06,"required":false,"source_id":"crb_papers.q007.gold","table":null,"tool":null,"value":0.10058679829181771,"weight":1.0,"where":null},{"abs_tol":4.170992816627088e-08,"bind":"answer_call","column":null,"failure_class":null,"field":"se","interval":false,"key":null,"kind":"answer_figure_close","min_lre":null,"note":"replication cell: the gold SE to rel 1e-6; never required","open_interval":false,"rel_tol":1e-06,"required":false,"source_id":"crb_papers.q007.gold","table":null,"tool":null,"value":0.04170992816627088,"weight":1.0,"where":null}],"datasets":{"ds_0004":{"columns":null,"description":"| Variable Name | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| congress | Two-year session of the U.S. Congress (numeric, 97\u2013113 corresponding to 1981\u20132014). |\n| icpsr | Stable numeric identifier for the legislator/candidate from the ICPSR member/candidate coding scheme; constant across Congresses. |\n| party_code | Party identifier using standard ICPSR party codes (e.g., 100 = Democrat, 200 = Republican). |\n| nominate_dim1 | DW-NOMINATE first-dimension roll-call ideology score, scaled roughly liberal (negative) to conservative (positive) across all Congresses. |\n| nokken_poole_dim1 | Nokken\u2013Poole first-dimension roll-call ideology score estimated separately within each Congress, allowing movement over time; liberal (negative) to conservative (positive). |\n| prog | Indicator for affiliation with the Congressional Progressive Caucus in that Congress (1 = member, 0 = not a member; may be blank before the caucus existed or if unknown). |\n| pop | Indicator for affiliation with the Populist Caucus in that Congress (1/0; may be blank when not applicable). |\n| new | Indicator for affiliation with the New Democrat Coalition in that Congress (1/0; may be blank when not applicable). |\n| bdc | Indicator for affiliation with the Blue Dog Coalition in that Congress (1/0; may be blank when not applicable). |\n| rmsp | Indicator for affiliation with the Republican Main Street Partnership in that Congress (1/0; may be blank when not applicable). |\n| rsc | Indicator for affiliation with the Republican Study Committee in that Congress (1/0; may be blank when not applicable). |\n| tea | Indicator for affiliation with the Tea Party Caucus in that Congress (1/0; may be blank when not applicable). |\n| lib | Indicator for affiliation with the House Liberty Caucus in that Congress (1/0; may be blank when not applicable). |\n| post109 | Convenience flag for Congresses at or after the 109th (1 for 2005\u20132006 and later; 0 otherwise). |\n| general_percent | Candidate\u2019s vote share in the most recent U.S. House general election in percent (0\u2013100). |\n| median_donor_current | Median contributor ideology (CF-score) among all donors to the candidate in the current two-year period; negative values indicate more liberal donor pools and positive values more conservative donor pools. |\n| mean_donor_current | Mean contributor ideology (CF-score) among all donors to the candidate in the current two-year period; same left\u2013right orientation as the median. |\n| districtpres | District-level vote share for the Democratic presidential nominee in the most recent presidential election, in percent (0\u2013100). |\n| primary_percent | Candidate\u2019s vote share in the most recent U.S. House primary election in percent (0\u2013100). |\n| bdc_incumbonly | Incumbent-only Blue Dog Coalition indicator in that Congress (1 if the sitting House member is affiliated; 0 otherwise). |\n| new_incumbonly | Incumbent-only New Democrat Coalition indicator in that Congress (1 if the sitting House member is affiliated; 0 otherwise). |\n| tea_incumbonly | Incumbent-only Tea Party Caucus indicator in that Congress (1 if the sitting House member is affiliated; 0 otherwise). |\n\nDataset Context:\nThis panel links U.S. House candidates to their party identification, recorded ideology from roll-call voting, affiliations with major ideological congressional caucuses, and election and donor environments over the 97th\u2013113th Congresses (1981\u20132014). Roll-call ideology is drawn from widely used spatial scaling procedures: DW-NOMINATE provides a common scale across time, while Nokken\u2013Poole estimates are produced separately within each Congress to capture short-run movement.\n\nCaucus affiliation indicators reflect publicly documented rosters of congressional membership organizations that articulate ideological or brand-like identities within each party. Rosters were compiled from official congressional registries of Member Organizations, reference volumes that track congressional activity, archived faction webpages, interviews, and contemporaneous reporting. Many ideological caucuses began or expanded in the mid-1990s and 2000s as the House formalized procedures for registering member organizations.\n\nElection results come from administrative and research consolidations of Federal Election Commission returns and related archives, providing general- and primary-election vote shares. District presidential vote share aligns each House district with the most recent presidential election result to summarize local partisan leanings.\n\nDonor-ideology measures are constructed from the Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections (DIME). Individual donations, PACs, party committees, and organizational contributions are linked to recipients and mapped onto a common ideological scale (CF-scores). For each candidate-by-Congress, the dataset summarizes the ideological composition of contributors using both the mean and median CF-score, allowing analysts to characterize the donor pool associated with a candidate in a given two-year period.\n\nTogether, these sources create a candidate-by-Congress panel suitable for studying ideological positioning in the House, participation in intra-party caucuses, and how electoral and donor environments vary over time within the institutional setting of congressional sessions.","file_sha256":"8c8e6455fbbb50c49ad4d8446be3ec8db06982fd54d231550cb31b8f152c2211","format":"csv","frame_sha256":null,"generator":null,"kind":"file","licence":"redistributed by CausalReasoningBenchmark (MIT) under the original replication data's terms","member":null,"object":null,"params":{},"path":null,"read_kw":{},"records":null,"role":"agent","sha256":"8c8e6455fbbb50c49ad4d8446be3ec8db06982fd54d231550cb31b8f152c2211","transforms":[],"url":"https://huggingface.co/datasets/syrgkanislab/CausalReasoningBenchmark/resolve/edd0fe1c1d1c5c0a4f0e3e67a50481ac679fb888/data/ds_0004/data/data.csv"}},"difficulty":"M","id":"crb_papers.q007","level":"T2","meta":{"agent_reach":{"blocked_by":["no_reference_path","no_tool:doubly_robust_did"],"dtypes":{"ds_0004":{"bdc":"int64","mean_donor_current":"float64"}},"named":{"outcome":["mean_donor_current"],"treatment":["bdc"]},"reachable":false,"rule":"magi_bench.reach/1"},"answer_format":{"figure_transform":"identity","round_to":null,"unit_scale":1.0},"cluster":"ds_0004","crb":{"data_path":"data/ds_0004/data/data.csv","dataset_id":"ds_0004","gold":{"ci95":[0.018835339085926786,0.18233825749770866],"ci_rule":"effect \u00b1 1.96\u00b7|standard_error| (evaluate_result.ci_bounds)","effect":0.10058679829181771,"standard_error":0.04170992816627088},"identification":{"causal_quantity":"ATT","controls":["general_percent","primary_percent","districtpres","nokken_poole_dim1"],"group_variable":"icpsr","minimal_controlling_set":["general_percent","primary_percent","districtpres"],"outcomes":["mean_donor_current"],"reason_for_minimal_controlling_set":"Clarke includes covariates \u201cto account for time- and unit-varying variables that may influence both faction membership patterns and the ideological composition of congressional donors\u201d and notes election-vote covariates are \u201clagged to avoid posttreatment bias\u201d (Clarke 2020, AJPS, pp. 462\u2013463). From a DAG perspective, \u201cConditioning on all common causes of D and Y is also sufficient\u201d (\u00a711.2, pp. 301\u2013303). The chosen pre-treatment variables proxy electoral strength and district ideology that plausibly affect both joining a faction and donor composition.","strategy":"Difference-in-Differences","time_variable":"congress","treatments":["bdc"]},"identification_strategy":"Difference-in-Differences"},"naive":{"dataset":"ds_0004","treatment":"bdc","y":"mean_donor_current"},"native_id":"7","reference_path":{"calls":[],"needs":["no_tool:doubly_robust_did"],"provenance":"none","quotes":{},"reference_datasets":[],"source_id":"crb_papers.q007.script"}},"question":"Did Democrats who newly joined the Blue Dog Coalition experience a change in the mean ideology of their contributors after joining compared with comparable Democrats who did not join?","requires":[],"runner":null,"sources":["crb_papers.q007.gold","crb_papers.q007.script"],"split":"public","suite":"crb_papers","tags":["econ-bench","external","crb","did","ref_none"],"target":"agent","tool":null,"truth":"CausalReasoningBenchmark gold at the pinned revision: causal_queries.json effect and standard_error (the value the item's estimation.py prints), scored as evaluate_result.py scores estimate_within_solution_ci"}