MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405801372 · doi:10.1134/s1995080224604879

Negative Binomial INAR(1) Process with Poisson-transmuted Record Type Exponential Innovations

2024· article· en· W4405801372 on OpenAlexaff
M. R. Irshad, Muhammed Ahammed, Radhakumari Maya, Witchaya Rattanametawee, Andrei Volodin

Bibliographic record

VenueLobachevskii Journal of Mathematics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsPoisson distributionNegative binomial distributionPoisson processBinomial (polynomial)Type (biology)Exponential functionApplied mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The integration of an integer-valued time series model with a negative binomial thinning operator is essential for effective modeling, addressing overdispersion, and accommodating intricate dependence structures. This article introduces a novel approach to modeling integer-valued time series data through the negative binomial first-order integer-valued autoregressive process with Poisson-transmuted record-type exponential innovations. The extension of the traditional first-order integer-valued autoregressive model incorporates a flexible negative binomial thinning operator to address overdispersion. The study derives the statistical properties of the process and estimates its parameters using conditional maximum likelihood and conditional least squares methods. The performance of the estimators is evaluated through simulation studies. Finally, we demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed model by analyzing some count time series data and comparing it with competing 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLobachevskii Journal of MathematicsSame topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207