MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133622384 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v10n3p1

Empirical Likelihood Ratio Test for Seemingly Unrelated Regression Models

2021· article· en· W3133622384 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chuanhua Wei, Xiaoxiao Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsEmpirical likelihoodLikelihood-ratio testNull hypothesisIndependence (probability theory)StatisticsSeemingly unrelated regressionsEconometricsNull (SQL)Chi-square testRegressionRegression analysisRatio testStatistical hypothesis testingScore testNull distributionApplied mathematicsTest statisticComputer scienceConfidence intervalData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the problem of testing independence of equations in a seemingly unrelated regression model. A novel empirical likelihood test approach is proposed, and under the null hypothesis it is shown to follow asymptotically a chi-square distribution. Finally, simulation studies and a real data example are conducted to illustrate the performance of the proposed method.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.410
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207