MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391999235 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11804

Censored autoregressive regression models with Student‐<i>t</i> innovations

2024· article· en· W4391999235 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katherine A. L. Valeriano, Fernanda L. Schumacher, Christian E. Galarza, Larissa A. Matos

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsOutlierCensoring (clinical trials)Missing dataRobustness (evolution)Autoregressive modelComputer scienceStatisticsExpectation–maximization algorithmRobust regressionCensored regression modelAsymptotic distributionLinear regressionRegression analysisEconometricsLeast absolute deviationsMathematicsRegressionMaximum likelihoodEstimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Data collected over time are common in applications and may contain censored or missing observations, making it difficult to use standard statistical procedures. This article proposes an algorithm to estimate the parameters of a censored linear regression model with errors serially correlated and innovations following a Student‐ distribution. This distribution is widely used in the statistical modelling of data containing outliers because its longer‐than‐normal tails provide a robust approach to handling such data. The maximum likelihood estimates of the proposed model are obtained through a stochastic approximation of the EM algorithm. The methods are applied to an environmental dataset regarding ammonia‐nitrogen concentration, which is subject to a limit of detection (left censoring) and contains missing observations. Additionally, two simulation studies are conducted to examine the asymptotic properties of the estimates and the robustness of the model. The proposed algorithm and methods are implemented in the R package ARCensReg.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.300 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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