MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions with First Order Autoregressive Disturbances

2013· article· en· W1863092522 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in mathematical sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorOrdinary least squaresMathematicsStatisticsAutoregressive modelGeneralized least squaresSeemingly unrelated regressionsAutocorrelationLeast-squares function approximationEstimating equationsMean squared errorEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Seemingly Unrelated Regressions (SUR) model, disturbances are assumed to be correlated across equations and it will be erroneous to assume that disturbances behave independently, hence, the need for an efficient estimator. Literature has revealed gain in efficiency of the SUR estimator over the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) estimator when the errors are correlated across equations. This work, however, considers methods of estimating a set of regression equations when disturbances are both contemporaneously and serially correlated. The Feasible Generalized Least Squares (FGLS), OLS and Iterative Ordinary Least Squares (IOLS) estimation techniques were considered and the form of autocorrelation examined. Prais-Winstein transformation was conducted on simulated data for the different sample sizes used to remove autocorrelations. Results from simulation studies showed that the FGLS was efficient both in small samples and large samples. Comparative performances of the estimators were investigated on the basis of the standard errors of the parameter estimates when estimating the model with and without AR(1) and the results showed that the estimators performed better with AR(1) as the sample size increased especially from 20. On the criterion of the Root Mean Square, the FGLS was found to have performed better with AR(1) and it was revealed that bias reduces as sample size increases. In all cases considered, the SUR estimator performed best. It was consistently most efficient than the OLS and IOLS estimators.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.192
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it