MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408924401 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18040177

Finite Mixture at Quantiles and Expectiles

2025· article· en· W4408924401 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marilena Furno

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantileEconometricsEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Finite mixture regression identifies homogeneous groups within a sample and computes the regression coefficients in each group. Groups and group coefficients are jointly estimated using an iterative approach. This work extends the finite mixture estimator to the tails of the distribution, by incorporating quantiles and expectiles and relaxing the constraint of constant group probability adopted in previous analysis. The probability of each group depends on the selected location: an observation can be allocated in the best-performing group if we look at low values of the dependent variable, while at higher values it may be assigned to the poorly performing class. We explore two case studies: school data from a PISA math proficiency test and asset returns from the Center for Research in Security Prices. In these real data examples, group classifications change based on the selected location of the dependent variable, and this has an impact on the regression estimates due to the joint computation of class probabilities and class regressions coefficients. A Monte Carlo experiment is conducted to compare the performances of the discussed estimators with results of previous research.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207