MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125337915

Analysis of Low Count Time Series Data by Poisson Autoregression

2004· article· en· W3125337915 on OpenAlexaff
R. Keith Freeland, Brendan McCabe

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCount dataAutoregressive modelPoisson distributionEconometricsSeries (stratigraphy)StatisticsData setMathematicsPoisson regressionOverdispersionTime seriesGoodness of fit
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study provides new methods of assessing the adequacy of the Poisson autoregressive time-series model for count data. New expressions are given for the score function and the information matrix and these lead to the construction of new types of residuals for this model. However, these residuals often need to be supplemented by formal statistical procedures and an overall test of the model adequacy is given via the information matrix equality that holds for correctly specified models. The techniques are applied to a monthly count data set of claimants for wage loss benefit, in order to estimate the the expected duration of claimants in the system. Copyright 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207