MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7011505525

Model Averaging: Methods and Applications

2021· dissertation· en· W7011505525 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigital Innovation in Industries
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrequentist inferenceSet (abstract data type)Mean squared errorModel selectionBayesian probabilityBayesian inferenceNonparametric statisticsMonte Carlo method
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis focuses on a leading approach for handling model uncertainty: model averaging. I examine the performance of model averaging compared to conventional econometric methods and to more recent machine learning algorithms, and demonstrate how model averaging can be applied to empirical problems in economics. It comprises of three chapters. Chapter 1 evaluates the relative performance of frequentist model averaging (FMA) to individual models, model selection, and three popular machine learning algorithms – bagging, boosting, and the post-lasso – in terms of their mean squared error (MSE). I find that model averaging performs well compared to these other methods in Monte Carlo simulations in the presence of model uncertainty. Additionally, using the National Longitudinal Survey, I use each method to estimate returns to education to demonstrate how easily model averaging can be adopted by empirical economists, with a novel emphasis on the set of candidate models that are averaged. This chapter makes three contributions: focusing on FMA rather than the more popular Bayesian model averaging; examining FMA compared to machine learning algorithms; and providing an illustrative application of FMA to empirical labour economics. Chapter 2 expands on Chapter 1 by investigating different approaches for constructing a set of candidate models to be used in model averaging – an important, yet often over- looked step. Ideally, the candidate model set should balance model complexity, breadth, and computational efficiency. Three promising approaches – model screening, recursive partitioning-based algorithms, and methods that average over nonparametric models – are discussed and their relative performance in terms of MSE is assessed via simulations. Additionally, certain heuristics necessary for empirical researchers to employ the recommended approach for constructing the candidate model set in their own work are described in detail. Chapter 3 applies the methods discussed in depth in earlier chapters to currently timely microdata. I use model selection, model averaging, and the lasso along with data from the Canadian Labour Force Survey to determine which method is best suited for assessing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the employment of parents with young children in Canada. I compare each model and method using classification metrics, including correct classification rates and receiver operating characteristic curves. I find that the models selected by model selection and model averaging and the lasso model perform better in terms of classification compared to the simpler parametric model specifications that have recently appeared in the literature, which suggests that empirical researchers should consider statistical methods for the choice of model rather than relying on ad hoc selection. Additionally, I estimate the marginal effect of sex on the probability of being employed and find that the results differ in magnitude across models in an economically important way, as these results could affect policies for post-pandemic recovery.

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)0.025
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicDigital Innovation in IndustriesFrench-language works237,207