MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095259086 · doi:10.5351/kjas.2011.24.1.011

Robust Unit Root Tests for a Panel TAR Model

2011· article· en· W2095259086 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dong-Wan Shin

Bibliographic record

VenueKorean Journal of Applied Statistics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnit rootOutlierMonte Carlo methodStatisticstar (computing)MathematicsNull hypothesisEconometricsStatistical hypothesis testingUnit root testComputer scienceCointegration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robust unit root tests are developed for dynamic panels consisting of TAR processes. The test statistics are all based on diverse combinations of individual t-type tests for significance of TAR coefficients. Limiting null distributions are established. A Monte-Carlo experiment compares the proposed tests. The tests are applied to a panel data set of Canadian unemployment rates which show asymmetric features as well as having outliers.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.308
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.054 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKorean Journal of Applied StatisticsSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207