Assessment of Statistical Approaches to Model Low Count Data: An Empirical Application to Youth Delinquency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors associated with number of crime committed by youth (Youth Delinquency) between ages 10-17, using Ordinary Least Square (OLS), Poisson Regression model (PRM), Negative Binomial Regression model (NBRM)& Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) with the aim to choose the most appropriate model for the observed count data. Methodology: The data in the study was collected from youth whose mothers enrolled in Philadelphia Collaborative Perinatal Project (CPP). School and delinquency record (between ages 10-17) was obtained by the Centre for studies in Criminology and Criminal Law. Literature search suggest that factors associated with child delinquency can be divided into four main factors as Individual, Family, School and Peer. Therefore we included variables in the analysis accordingly. Result: For OLS scatter plot of residuals versus estimated counts showed definite pattern of heterogeneity (non-constant variance). The likelihood-ratio (LR) test of over dispersion yields the significant p-value, which implied that the outcome variable is overdispersed. The plot of the difference between the actual probabilities and the mean predicted probabilities for each model showed that PRM has poor predictions for low counts (0-2). Conclusion: NBRM and ZINB both performed well, however fit statistics revealed that NBRM has provided more closed predication as compare ZINB.NB modeling techniques provides much more compelling and accurate results instead of basic PRM or those available through simple linear or log-linear modeling techniques
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".