MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1913101100 · doi:10.1111/jtsa.12020

Unit root testing with stationary covariates and a structural break in the trend function

2013· article· en· W1913101100 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastian Fossati

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Time Series Analysis · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnit rootMathematicsUnivariateStructural breakUnit root testCovariateStatistical hypothesis testingStatisticsFunction (biology)Sample size determinationAsymptotic distributionSample (material)Applied mathematicsFocus (optics)Power (physics)Power functionEconometricsMathematical analysisCointegrationMultivariate statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of testing for a unit root allowing for a structural break in the trend function is considered. The focus is on the construction of more powerful tests using the information in relevant multi‐variate data sets. The proposed test adopts the generalized least squares detrending approach and uses correlated stationary covariates to improve power. As it is standard in the literature, the break date is treated as unknown. Asymptotic distributions are derived, and a set of asymptotic and finite sample critical values are tabulated. Asymptotic local power functions show that power gains can be large. Finite sample results show that the test exhibits small‐size distortions and power that can be far beyond what is achievable by univariate tests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Time Series AnalysisSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207