MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890589983 · doi:10.1111/jtsa.12441

Negative Binomial Autoregressive Process with Stochastic Intensity

2018· article· en· W2890589983 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

VenueJournal of Time Series Analysis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive modelMathematicsUnivariateBivariate analysisSETARNegative binomial distributionEconometricsStatisticsEstimatorSTAR modelWishart distributionApplied mathematicsAutoregressive integrated moving averageMultivariate statisticsTime seriesPoisson distribution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce negative binomial‐60 autoregressive (NBAR) processes with stochastic intensity for (univariate and bivariate) count processes. The univariate NBAR process is defined jointly with an underlying intensity process, which is autoregressive gamma. The resulting count process is Markov, with negative binomial conditional and marginal distributions. The process is then extended to the bivariate case with a Wishart autoregressive matrix intensity process. The NBAR processes are compound autoregressive, which allows for simple stationarity condition and quasi‐closed form nonlinear forecasting formulae at any horizon, as well as a computationally tractable generalized method of moment estimator. The model is applied to a pairwise analysis of weekly occurrence counts of a contagious disease between the greater Paris region and other French regions.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.308 · 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