MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On Parameter Estimation for Exponential Dispersion Arma Models

2005· article· en· W1967191198 on OpenAlexaff
Peter X.‐K. Song, Dingan Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Time Series Analysis · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of WaterlooHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive–moving-average modelAutoregressive modelAutocorrelationMathematicsSeries (stratigraphy)Applied mathematicsRepresentation (politics)ResidualExponential functionEstimation theoryProjection (relational algebra)STAR modelMoving averageMoving-average modelAutoregressive integrated moving averageEconometricsTime seriesStatisticsAlgorithmMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A class of autoregressive moving‐average (ARMA) models proposed by Jørgensen and Song [Journal of Applied Probability (1998), vol. 35, pp. 78–92] with exponential dispersion model margins are useful to deal with non‐normal stationary time series with high‐order autocorrelation. One property associated with the class of models is that the projection process takes the exact form of the classical Box and Jenkins ARMA representation, leading to considerable ease to establish theories. This paper focuses on the issue of parameter estimation for such models, which has not been thoroughly investigated in Jørgensen and Song's paper. The key of the proposed approach is to treat the residual process associated with the projection essentially as a measurement error, which enables us to formulate directly an ARMA representation for the observed time series. The parameter estimation therefore becomes straightforward using the existing methods for the Box and Jenkins ARMA models such as the quasi‐likelihood method. The approach is illustrated by simulation studies and by an analysis of myoclonic seizure counts.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Time Series AnalysisSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207