MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025670680 · doi:10.1080/03610910701569531

Selection of Models of Lagged Identification Rates and Lagged Association Rates Using AIC and QAIC

2007· article· en· W2025670680 on OpenAlexafffund
Hal Whitehead

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInnovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAkaike information criterionJackknife resamplingStatisticsIdentification (biology)EconometricsAssociation (psychology)MathematicsModel selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)LagComputer scienceBiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lagged identification rate is the probability of identifying an individual given its identification some time lag earlier. The lagged association rate is the probability that two individuals are associated given their association some time lag earlier. Models of lagged identification and association rates fit by maximizing the sums of non independent log-likelihoods have approximately unbiased parameter estimates. Simulations suggest that: Akaike-Information-Criterion often selects the true model of lagged identification rate data; quasi-Akaike-Information-Criterion performs better for lagged association rates; and confidence intervals for parameters are best obtained by bootstrap methods for lagged identification rates and quasi-likelihood or jackknife methods for lagged association rates.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.297
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations131
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and ComputationSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207