Estimates and inferences in accounting panel data sets: comparing approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review and evaluate the methods commonly used in accounting literature to correct for cointegrated data and data that are neither stationary nor cointegrated. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted Monte Carlo simulations according to Baltagi et al. (2011), Petersen (2009) and Gow et al. (2010), to analyze how regression results are affected by the possible nonstationarity of the variables of interest. Findings The results of this study suggest that biases in regression estimates can be reduced and valid inferences can be obtained by using robust standard errors clustered by firm, clustered by firm and time or Fama–MacBeth t-statistics based on the mean and standard errors of the cross section of coefficients from time-series regressions. Originality/value The findings of this study are suited to guide future researchers regarding which estimation methods are the most reliable given the possible nonstationarity of the variables of interest.
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 | 0.157 | 0.566 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".