MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283217532 · doi:10.1111/obes.12511

Testing the Presence of Outliers in Regression Models*

2022· article· en· W4283217532 on OpenAlex
Xiyu Jiao, Felix Pretis

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersBritish AcademyRobertson Foundation
KeywordsOutlierEconometricsStatisticsRegression analysisLinear regressionRegressionScalingSimple linear regressionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose two sets of tests for the overall presence of outliers in regression models. First, ‘simple’ tests on whether the proportion and the number of detected outliers deviate from their expected values. Second, ‘scaling’ tests on whether the proportion of outliers decreases with the cut‐off used to detect outliers. We apply our tests to a panel difference‐in‐differences model of transport CO 2 emissions in response to the introduction of North America's first major carbon tax. Our tests show the presence of significant outliers in the un‐taxed control group, which results in an overestimation of the estimated impacts of the tax.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.169 · 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