MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080412783 · doi:10.1002/cjs.5540330306

Pseudo-likelihood ratio tests for semiparametric multivariate copula model selection

2005· article· en· W2080412783 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaohong Chen, Yanqin Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCopula (linguistics)MathematicsLikelihood-ratio testMultivariate statisticsStatisticsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors propose pseudo-likelihood ratio tests for selecting semiparametric multivariate copula models in which the marginal distributions are unspecified, but the copula function is parameterized and can be misspecified. For the comparison of two models, the tests differ depending on whether the two copulas are generalized nonnested or generalized nested. For more than two models, the procedure is built on the reality check test of White (2000). Unlike White (2000), however, the test statistic is automatically standardized for generalized nonnested models (with the benchmark) and ignores generalized nested models asymptotically. The authors illustrate their approach with American insurance claim data.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.205
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.205
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
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

Citations151
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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