Joint analysis of multivariate spatial count and zero‐heavy count outcomes using common spatial factor models
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
This paper discusses joint outcome modeling of multivariate spatial data, where outcomes include count as well as zero‐inflated count data. The framework utilized for the joint spatial count outcome analysis reflects that which is now commonly used for the joint analysis of longitudinal and survival data, termed shared frailty models, in which the outcomes are linked through a shared latent spatial random risk term. We discuss these types of joint mapping models and consider the benefits achieved through such joint modeling in the disease mapping context. We also consider the power of tests for common spatial structure in the context of two spatial maps and develop recommendations on the sort of power achievable in some contexts, as well as overall recommendations on the utility of joint mapping. We illustrate the approaches in an analysis of lung cancer mortality as well as an ecological study of Comandra blister rust infection of lodgepole pine trees. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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