MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122231359

Beyond Panel Unit Root Tests: Using Multiple Testing to Determine the Non Stationarity Properties of Individual Series in a Panel

2010· preprint· en· W3122231359 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hyungsik Roger Moon, Benoît Perron

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2010
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSpatial and Panel Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMitacsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsUnit rootUnivariateSeries (stratigraphy)Null hypothesisEconometricsPanel dataStatisticsNull (SQL)MathematicsRoot (linguistics)False discovery rateComputer scienceData miningMultivariate statistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most panel unit root tests are designed to test the joint null hypothesis of a unit root for each individual series in a panel. After a rejection, it will often be of interest to identify which series can be deemed to be stationary and which series can be deemed nonstationary. Researchers will sometimes carry out this classification on the basis of n individual (univariate) unit root tests based on some ad hoc significance level. In this paper, we demonstrate how to use the false discovery rate (FDR) in evaluating I(1)=I(0) classifications based on individual unit root tests when the size of the cross section (n) and time series (T) dimensions are large. We report results from a simulation experiment and illustrate the methods on two data sets.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.190
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.190
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.229
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.081 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicSpatial and Panel Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207