MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clustered Mixed Nonhomogeneous Poisson Process Spline Models for the Analysis of Recurrent Event Panel Data

2007· article· en· W1965508964 on OpenAlexafffund
Jason D. Nielsen, C. B. Dean

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityCarleton University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on AgingNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPoisson processSpline (mechanical)Event (particle physics)Point processComputer sciencePoisson distributionProcess (computing)Event dataStatisticsEconometricsMathematicsApplied mathematicsData miningCovariateEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A flexible semiparametric model for analyzing longitudinal panel count data arising from mixtures is presented. Panel count data refers here to count data on recurrent events collected as the number of events that have occurred within specific follow-up periods. The model assumes that the counts for each subject are generated by mixtures of nonhomogeneous Poisson processes with smooth intensity functions modeled with penalized splines. Time-dependent covariate effects are also incorporated into the process intensity using splines. Discrete mixtures of these nonhomogeneous Poisson process spline models extract functional information from underlying clusters representing hidden subpopulations. The motivating application is an experiment to test the effectiveness of pheromones in disrupting the mating pattern of the cherry bark tortrix moth. Mature moths arise from hidden, but distinct, subpopulations and monitoring the subpopulation responses was of interest. Within-cluster random effects are used to account for correlation structures and heterogeneity common to this type of data. An estimating equation approach to inference requiring only low moment assumptions is developed and the finite sample properties of the proposed estimating functions are investigated empirically by simulation.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.428
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.050 · 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

Citations22
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207