Bibliographic record
Abstract
When competing risks are present, two types of analysis can be performed: modelling the cause specific hazard and modelling the hazard of the subdistribution. This paper contrasts these two methods and presents the benefits of each. The interpretation is specific to the analysis performed. When modelling the cause specific hazard, one performs the analysis under the assumption that the competing risks do not exist. This could be beneficial when, for example, the main interest is whether the treatment works in general. In modelling the hazard of the subdistribution, one incorporates the competing risks in the analysis. This analysis compares the observed incidence of the event of interest between groups. The latter analysis is specific to the structure of the observed data and it can be generalized only to another population with similar competing risks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.138 | 0.396 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".