Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One way to control for the heterogeneity in panel data is to allow for time-invariant, individual specific parameters. This fixed effect approach introduces many parameters into the model which causes the “incidental parameter problem”: the maximum likelihood estimator is in general inconsistent. Woutersen (2001) shows how to approximately separate the parameters of interest from the fixed effects using a reparametrization. He then shows how a Bayesian method gives a general solution to the incidental parameter for correctly specified models. This paper extends Woutersen (2001) to misspecified models. Following White (1982), we assume that the expectation of the score of the integrated likelihood is zero at the true values of the parameters. We then derive the conditions under which a Bayesian estimator converges at rate N where N is the number of individuals. Under these conditions, we show that the variance-covariance matrix of the Bayesian estimator has the form of White (1982). We illustrate our approach by the dynamic linear model with fixed effects and a duration model with fixed effects.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it