MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026573592 · doi:10.1142/s0218339000000079

ASYMPTOTIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED BDS STATISTIC AND RESIDUAL ANALYSIS OF AR MODELS ON THE CANADIAN LYNX DATA

2000· article· en· W2026573592 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dejian Lai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Systems · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsAutoregressive modelNonparametric statisticsStatisticStatisticsAsymptotic distributionIndependent and identically distributed random variablesSeries (stratigraphy)Independence (probability theory)Test statisticResidualCentral limit theoremApplied mathematicsEconometricsStatistical hypothesis testingRandom variableEstimatorAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Brock–Dechert–Scheinkman (BDS) statistic is a nonparametric statistic based on correlation integral for testing independence. It has a special ability to identify dependence in a given time series generated by some simple dynamic systems when many conventional test statistics are not able to distinguish this type of time series from observations of independent, identically distributed (IID) random variables. Using the contiguity property derived from the local asymptotic normality for the log-likelihood ratio of nonlinear autoregressive processes, we prove the central limit theorem for the estimated BDS statistic on the residuals of fitting nonlinear autoregressive models. Comparative studies on the BDS statistic and some other nonparametric statistics on simulated time series and residuals from the AR models on the Canadian lynx are also provided in this paper.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.076 · 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological SystemsSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207