Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robust rankings of poverty are ones that do not rely on a single poverty measure with a single poverty line. Mathematically, such robust rankings of two populations specifies a continuum of unconditional moment inequality constraints. If these constraints could be imposed in estimation then a statistical test can be performed using an empirical likelihood-ratio (ELR) test, which is a nonparametric version of the likelihood-ratio test in parametric inference. While these constraints cannot be imposed exactly, we show that these can be imposed approximately with the approximation disappearing asymptotically. We then propose a bootstrap test procedure that implements the resulting approximate ELR test. The paper derives the asymptotic properties of this test, presents Monte Carlo experiments that show improved power compared to existing tests such as that of Linton et al. (2010), and provides an empirical illustration to Canadian income distribution data. More generally, the bootstrap test procedure provides a uniformly asymptotically valid nonparametric test of a continuum of unconditional moment inequality constraints. The proofs exploit the fact that the constrained optimization problem is a concave semi-infinite programming optimization problem.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.234 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".