MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073524117 · doi:10.1080/03610926.2012.687067

Conditional Score Tests for Heteroscedasticity in the Two-Way Error Components Model

2014· article· en· W2073524117 on OpenAlexaff
Eugène Kouassi, Joël Sango, JM Bosson Brou, Mbodja Mougoué

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and Methods · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSpatial and Panel Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeteroscedasticityScore testEconometricsStatisticsMathematicsScoreAsymptotic distributionStatisticLagrange multiplierStatistical hypothesis testingEstimatorMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper extends the one-way heteroskedasticity score test of Holly and Gardiol (2000, In: Krishnakumar, J, Ronchetti, E (Eds.), Panel Data Econometrics: Future Directions, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 199–211) to two conditional Lagrange Multiplier (LM) tests of heteroskedasticity under contiguous alternatives within the two-way error components model framework. In each case, the derivation of Rao's efficient score statistics for testing heteroskedasticity is first obtained. Then, based on a specific set of assumptions, the asymptotic distribution of the score under contiguous alternatives is established. Finally, the expression for the score test statistic in the presence of heteroskedasticity and related asymptotic local powers of these score test statistics are derived and discussed.

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)0.105
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and MethodsSame topicSpatial and Panel Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207