Bibliographic record
Abstract
Copula modelling is a popular tool in analysing the dependencies between variables. Copula modelling allows the investigation of tail dependencies, which is of particular interest in risk and survival applications. Copula modelling is also of specific interest to economic and financial modelling as it can help in the prediction of financial contagion and periods of “boom” or “bust”. Bivariate copula modelling has a rich variety of copulas that may be chosen to represent the modelled dataset dependencies and possible extreme events that may lie within the dataset tails. Financial copula modelling tends to diverge as this richness of copula types within the literature may not be well realised with the two different types of modelling, one being non-time-series and the other being time-series, being undertaken differently. This paper investigates standard copula modelling and financial copula modelling and shows why the modelling strategies in using time-series and non-time-series copula modelling is undertaken using different methods. This difference, apart from the issues surrounding the time-series component, is mostly due to standard copula modelling having the ability to use empirical CDFs for the probability integral transformation. Financial time-series copula modelling uses pseudo-CDFs due to the standardized time-series residuals being centred around zero. The standardized residuals inhibit the estimation of the possible distributions required for constructing the copula model in the usual manner.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".