MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009201331 · doi:10.1080/13504851.2011.568382

Breaking deterministics, test size and the efficient Wald test for fractional unit roots

2011· article· en· W2009201331 on OpenAlexaff
Peter S. Sephton

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Economics Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWald testTest (biology)Unit rootNull hypothesisUnit (ring theory)EconometricsStatisticsMathematicsNull (SQL)EconomicsStatistical hypothesis testingComputer scienceBotanyDatabaseBiologyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lobato and Velasco (2007 Lobato, I. and Velasco, C. 2007. Efficient wald tests for fractional unit roots. Econometrica, 75: 575–90. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) introduced a test for a unit root against fractional alternatives with good power and performance properties. The purpose of this article is to examine the size of the test in the presence of level and trend breaks under the null hypothesis. The results suggest that test size remains relatively unaffected by level breaks but that the test can be undersized when there are breaking trends.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Economics LettersSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207