MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983074539 · doi:10.2307/3315967

Kendall's tau for serial dependence

2000· article· en· W1983074539 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Thomas S. Ferguson, Christian Genest, Marc Hallin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFondation Francqui - Stichting
KeywordsNonparametric statisticsUnivariateMathematicsStatisticsNull hypothesisAutocorrelationAutoregressive modelStatisticMonte Carlo methodAsymptotic distributionContext (archaeology)Series (stratigraphy)Independence (probability theory)Null (SQL)EconometricsParametric statisticsStatistical hypothesis testingApplied mathematicsEstimatorMultivariate statisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The authors show how Kendall's tau can be adapted to test against serial dependence in a univariate time series context. They provide formulas for the mean and variance of circular and noncircular versions of this statistic, and they prove its asymptotic normality under the hypothesis of independence. They present also a Monte Carlo study comparing the power and size of a test based on Kendall's tau with the power and size of competing procedures based on alternative parametric and nonparametric measures of serial dependence. In particular, their simulations indicate that Kendall's tau outperforms Spearman's rho in detecting first‐order autoregressive dependence, despite the fact that these two statistics are asymptotically equivalent under the null hypothesis, as well as under local alternatives.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations95
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207