Sequentially testing polynomial model hypotheses using power transforms of regressors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary We provide a methodology for testing a polynomial model hypothesis by generalizing the approach and results of Baek, Cho, and Phillips (Journal of Econometrics, 2015,187, 376–384; BCP), which test for neglected nonlinearity using power transforms of regressors against arbitrary nonlinearity. We use the BCP quasi‐likelihood ratio test and deal with the new multifold identification problem that arises under the null of the polynomial model. The approach leads to convenient asymptotic theory for inference, has omnibus power against general nonlinear alternatives, and allows estimation of an unknown polynomial degree in a model by way of sequential testing, a technique that is useful in the application of sieve approximations. Simulations show good performance in the sequential test procedure in both identifying and estimating unknown polynomial order. The approach, which can be used empirically to test for misspecification, is applied to a Mincer (Journal of Political Economy, 1958,66, 281–302;Schooling, Experience and Earnings, Columbia University Press, 1974) equation using data from Card (in Christofides, Grant, and Swidinsky (Eds.),Aspects of Labour Market Behaviour: Essays in Honour of John Vanderkamp, University of Toronto Press, 1995, 201‐222) and Bierens and Ginther (Empirical Economics, 2001,26, 307–324). The results confirm that the standard Mincer log earnings equation is readily shown to be misspecified. The applications consider different datasets and examine the impact of nonlinear effects of experience and schooling on earnings, allowing for flexibility in the respective polynomial representations.
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 | 0.025 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".