MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510584737 · doi:10.4236/ojs.2016.64054

Efficiency of Some Estimators for a Generalized Poisson Autoregressive Process of Order 1

2016· article· en· W2510584737 on OpenAlexafffund
Louis G. Doray, Andrew Luong, El-Halla Najem

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Journal of Statistics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalActuaOntario Universities’ Application CentreUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEstimatorAutoregressive modelMathematicsApplied mathematicsSeries (stratigraphy)Asymptotic analysisPoisson distributionStatisticsGeneralized method of momentsConditional varianceSTAR modelTime seriesEconometricsAutoregressive integrated moving averageAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various models have been proposed in the literature to study non-negative integer-valued time series. In this paper, we study estimators for the generalized Poisson autoregressive process of order 1, a model developed by Alzaid and Al-Osh [1]. We compare three estimation methods, the methods of moments, quasi-likelihood and conditional maximum likelihood and study their asymptotic properties. To compare the bias of the estimators in small samples, we perform a simulation study for various parameter values. Using the theory of estimating equations, we obtain expressions for the variance-covariance matrices of those three estimators, and we compare their asymptotic efficiency. Finally, we apply the methods derived in the paper to a real time series.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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