MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020113412 · doi:10.1002/cjs.10034

On the Ghoudi, Khoudraji, and Rivest test for extreme‐value dependence

2009· article· en· W2020113412 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Noomen Ben Ghorbal, Christian Genest, Johanna Nešlehová

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsStatisticsCopula (linguistics)Jackknife resamplingMathematicsTest statisticStatisticStatistical hypothesis testingEconometricsDelta method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ghoudi, Khoudraji & Rivest [The Canadian Journal of Statistics 1998;26:187–197] showed how to test whether the dependence structure of a pair of continuous random variables is characterized by an extreme‐value copula. The test is based on a U‐statistic whose finite‐ and large‐sample variance are determined by the present authors. They propose estimates of this variance which they compare to the jackknife estimate of Ghoudi, Khoudraji & Rivest ( 1998 ) through simulations. They study the finite‐sample and asymptotic power of the test under various alternatives. They illustrate their approach using financial and geological data. The Canadian Journal of Statistics © 2009 Statistical Society of Canada

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.368
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.368
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.162 · 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
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

Citations52
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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