MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189227088 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14080366

Spurious Relationships for Nearly Non-Stationary Series

2021· article· en· W3189227088 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicForecasting Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpurious relationshipSeries (stratigraphy)ConjectureEconometricsRegressionRegression analysisSet (abstract data type)MathematicsStatisticsStatistical physicsApplied mathematicsComputer scienceCombinatoricsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Literature shows that the regression of independent and (nearly) nonstationary time series could result in spurious outcomes. In this paper, we conjecture that under some situations, the regression of two independent and nearly non-stationary series does not have any spurious problem at all. To check whether our conjecture holds, we set up several situations and conduct simulations to justify our conjecture. Our simulations show that under some situations, the chance that the regressions being spurious is very high for all the cases simulated in our paper. Nonetheless, under some other situations, our simulation shows that the rejection rates are much smaller than the 5% level of significance for all the cases simulated in our paper, implying that our conjecture could hold under some situations that regression of two independent and nearly non-stationary series does not have any spurious problem at all.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.267 · 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