The findings are robust across different operationalizations of war-event indicators.

Evidence

To examine whether our operationalization of the ACLED-based indicators affects our findings, we performed additional analyses (on the overall sample) with (1) all indicators defined as the frequency of events (i.e., initial indicators and before log transformations); (2) the indicators Battles, Shared victimization, and Attacks on civilians defined as the ratios between the number of specific types of events and the number of all events in regions; and (3) spatially nonweighted indicators. All of the main findings were replicated (the results are available from the first author upon request). — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 142

Categorization

• QUESTION: Methodological robustness checks reported only in text, with full results unavailable in-paper — worth chasing if needing to trust the core effect.
• XREF: connects to: Robust causal relationships would survive differences in measurement choices; Contract data by place of performance can misattribute war support work to neutral countries; The administrative cribbing of reports determined which event readings became evidence

Broader Connections

• Robust causal relationships would survive differences in measurement choices #expands (0.88)
• Contract data by place of performance can misattribute war support work to neutral countries #complicates (0.78)
• The administrative cribbing of reports determined which event readings became evidence #complicates (0.75)