Comparison of variance estimation approaches in a two-state Markov model for longitudinal data with misclassification
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
We examine the behaviour of the variance-covariance parameter estimates in an alternating binary Markov model with misclassification. Transition probabilities specify the state transitions for a process that is not directly observable. The state of an observable process, which may not correctly classify the state of the unobservable process, is obtained at discrete time points. Misclassification probabilities capture the two types of classification errors. Variance components of the estimated transition parameters are calculated with three estimation procedures: observed information, jackknife, and bootstrap techniques. Simulation studies are used to compare variance estimates and reveal the effect of misclassification on transition parameter estimation. The three approaches generally provide similar variance estimates for large samples and moderate misclassification. In these situations, the resampling methods are reasonable alternatives when programming partial derivatives is not appealing. With smaller chains or higher misclassification probabilities, the bootstrap method appears to be the best choice.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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