MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008363918 · doi:10.1080/09652140020004287

Multivariate modeling of missing data within and across assessment waves

2000· review· en· W2008363918 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissing dataMultivariate statisticsImputation (statistics)Latent variableMultivariate analysisComputer scienceLatent variable modelData miningContext (archaeology)StatisticsLongitudinal dataEconometricsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Missing data constitute a common but widely underappreciated problem in both cross-sectional and longitudinal research. Furthermore, both the gravity of the problems associated with missing data and the availability of the applicable solutions are greatly increased by the use of multivariate analysis. The most common approaches to dealing with missing data are reviewed, such as data deletion and data imputation, and their relative merits and limitations are discussed. One particular form of data imputation based on latent variable modeling, which we call Multivariate Imputation, is highlighted as holding great promise for dealing with missing data in the context of multivariate analysis. The recent theoretical extension of latent variable modeling to growth curve analysis also permitted us to extend the same kind of solution to the problem of missing data in longitudinal studies. Data simulations are used to compare the results of multivariate imputation to other common approaches to missing data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.296
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.219 · 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