<b>nparLD</b>: An<i>R</i>Software Package for the Nonparametric Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Factorial Experiments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longitudinal data from factorial experiments frequently arise in various fields of study, ranging from medicine and biology to public policy and sociology. In most practical situations, the distribution of observed data is unknown and there may exist a number of atypical measurements and outliers. Hence, use of parametric and semi-parametric procedures that impose restrictive distributional assumptions on observed longitudinal samples becomes questionable. This, in turn, has led to a substantial demand for statistical procedures that enable us to accurately and reliably analyze longitudinal measurements in factorial experiments with minimal conditions on available data, and robust nonparametric methodology offering such a possibility becomes of particular practical importance. In this article, we introduce a new R package <b>nparLD</b> which provides statisticians and researchers from other disciplines an easy and user-friendly access to the most up-to-date robust rank-based methods for the analysis of longitudinal data in factorial settings. We illustrate the implemented procedures by case studies from dentistry, biology, and medicine.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it