A Comparative Study of Observation- and Parameter-driven Zero-inflated Poisson Models for Longitudinal Count Data
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
Longitudinal count data with excessive zeros frequently occur in social, biological, medical, and health research. To model such data, zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) models are commonly used, after separating zero and positive responses. As longitudinal count responses are likely to be serially correlated, such separation may destroy the underlying serial correlation structure. To overcome this problem recently observation- and parameter-driven modelling approaches have been proposed. In the observation-driven model, the response at a specific time point is modelled through the responses at previous time points after incorporating serial correlation. One limitation of the observation-driven model is that it fails to accommodate the presence of any possible over-dispersion, which frequently occurs in the count responses. This limitation is overcome in a parameter-driven model, where the serial correlation is captured through the latent process using random effects. We compare the results obtained by the two models. A quasi-likelihood approach has been developed to estimate the model parameters. The methodology is illustrated with analysis of two real life datasets. To examine model performance the models are also compared through a simulation study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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