MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007833551 · doi:10.1081/etc-120014348

IS ADAPTIVE ESTIMATION USEFUL FOR PANEL MODELS WITH HETEROSKEDASTICITY IN THE INDIVIDUAL SPECIFIC ERROR COMPONENT? SOME MONTE CARLO EVIDENCE

2002· article· en· W2007833551 on OpenAlexafffund
Nilanjana Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueEconometric Reviews · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSpatial and Panel Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsEstimatorHeteroscedasticityMonte Carlo methodComponent (thermodynamics)EconometricsComputer scienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper first derives an adaptive estimator when heteroskedasticity is present in the individual specific error in an error component model and then compares the finite sample performance of the proposed estimator with various other estimators. While the Monte Carlo results show that the proposed estimator performs adequately in terms of relative efficiency, its performance on the basis of empirical size is quite similar to the other estimators considered.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.547
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations41
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconometric ReviewsSame topicSpatial and Panel Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207