MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062452883 · doi:10.2307/3316009

Empirical likelihood for linear regression models under imputation for missing responses

2001· article· en· W2062452883 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEmpirical likelihoodMathematicsStatisticsImputation (statistics)Confidence intervalLikelihood-ratio testLinear regressionMissing dataRegression analysisEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The authors study the empirical likelihood method for linear regression models. They show that when missing responses are imputed using least squares predictors, the empirical log‐likelihood ratio is asymptotically a weighted sum of chi‐square variables with unknown weights. They obtain an adjusted empirical log‐likelihood ratio which is asymptotically standard chi‐square and hence can be used to construct confidence regions. They also obtain a bootstrap empirical log‐likelihood ratio and use its distribution to approximate that of the empirical log‐likelihood ratio. A simulation study indicates that the proposed methods are comparable in terms of coverage probabilities and average lengths of confidence intervals, and perform better than a normal approximation based method.

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)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.259
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.178 · 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