Bootstrap Approach for Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions with Varying Degrees of Autocorrelated Disturbances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Seemingly Unrelated Regressions (SUR) model proposed in 1962 by Arnold Zellner has gained a wide acceptability and its practical use is enormous. In this research, two methods of estimation techniques were examined in the presence of varying degrees of first order Autoregressive [AR(1)] coefficients in the error terms of the model. Data was simulated using bootstrapping approach for sample sizes of 20, 50, 100, 500 and 1000. Performances of Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and Generalized Least Squares (GLS) estimators were examined under a definite form of the variance-covariance matrix used for estimation in all the sample sizes considered. The results revealed that the GLS estimator was efficient both in small and large sample sizes. Comparative performances of the estimators were studied with 0.3 and 0.5 as assumed coefficients of AR(1) in the first and second regressions and these coefficients were further interchanged for each regression equation, it was deduced that standard errors of the parameters decreased with increase in the coefficients of AR(1) for both estimators with the SUR estimator performing better as sample size increased. Examining the performances of the SUR estimator with varying degrees of AR(1) using Mean Square Error (MSE), the SUR estimator performed better with autocorrelation coefficient of 0.3 than that of 0.5 in both regression equations with best MSE obtained to be 0.8185 using $\rho = 0.3$ in the second regression equation for sample size of 50.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".