MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366411838 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11773

Bayesian instrumental variable estimation in linear measurement error models

2023· article· en· W4366411838 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Qi Wang, Lichun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPrior probabilityInstrumental variableEstimatorBayes' theoremMathematicsApplied mathematicsBayes estimatorStatisticsMean squared errorLinear modelBias of an estimatorVariance (accounting)Minimum-variance unbiased estimatorBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, we study the problem of parameter estimation for measurement error models by combining the Bayes method with the instrumental variable approach, deriving the posterior distribution of parameters under different priors with known and unknown variance parameters, respectively, and calculating the Bayes estimator (BE) of the parameters under quadratic loss. However, it is difficult to obtain an explicit expression for BE because of the complex multiple integrals involved. Therefore, we adopt the linear Bayes method, which does not specify the form of the prior and avoids these complicated integral calculations, to obtain an expression for the linear Bayes estimator (LBE) for different priors. We prove that this LBE is superior to the two‐stage least squares estimator under the mean squared error matrix criterion. Numerical simulations show that our LBE is very close to the real parameter whether the variance parameters are known or unknown, and it gradually approaches BE as the sample size increases. Our results indicate that this instrumental variable approach is valid for measurement error models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207