MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383646203 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11784

A combined moment equation approach for spatial autoregressive models

2023· article· en· W4383646203 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiaxin Liu, Hongliang Liu, Yi Li, Huazhen Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSpatial and Panel Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEstimatorAutoregressive modelMoment (physics)CovarianceGeneralized method of momentsApplied mathematicsResidualMathematicsMethod of moments (probability theory)Estimating equationsComputationMathematical optimizationComputer scienceEconometricsStatisticsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Existing methods for fitting spatial autoregressive models have various strengths and weaknesses. For example, the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) approach yields efficient estimates but is computationally burdensome. Computationally efficient methods, such as generalized method of moments (GMMs) and spatial two‐stage least squares (2SLS), typically require exogenous covariates to be significant, a restrictive assumption that may fail in practice. We propose a new estimating equation approach, termed combined moment equation (COME), which combines the first moment with covariance conditions on the residual terms. The proposed estimator is less computationally demanding than MLE and does not need the restrictive exogenous conditions as required by GMM and 2SLS. We show that the proposed estimator is consistent and establish its asymptotic distribution. Extensive simulations demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms the competitors in terms of bias, efficiency, and computation. We apply the proposed method to analyze an air pollution study, and obtain some interesting results about the spatial distribution of PM2.5 concentrations in Beijing.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.129 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicSpatial and Panel Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207