MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795653879 · doi:10.1017/s0266466619000276

REPRESENTATION OF I(1) AND I(2) AUTOREGRESSIVE HILBERTIAN PROCESSES

2019· article· en· W2795653879 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEconometric Theory · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStatistical Mechanics and Entropy
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive modelSTAR modelLinear subspaceSeparable spaceOperator (biology)Pencil (optics)Hilbert spaceRepresentation (politics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop versions of the Granger–Johansen representation theorems for I(1) and I(2) vector autoregressive processes that apply to processes taking values in an arbitrary complex separable Hilbert space. This more general setting is of central relevance for statistical applications involving functional time series. An I(1) or I(2) solution to an autoregressive law of motion is obtained when the inverse of the autoregressive operator pencil has a pole of first or second order at one. We obtain a range of necessary and sufficient conditions for such a pole to be of first or second order. Cointegrating and attractor subspaces are characterized in terms of the behavior of the autoregressive operator pencil in a neighborhood of one.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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