MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092017416 · doi:10.2307/3316145

Score tests for heterogeneity and overdispersion in zero‐inflated Poisson and binomial regression models

2002· article· en· W2092017416 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel B. Hall, Kenneth S. Berenhaut

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverdispersionNegative binomial distributionCount dataMathematicsPoisson regressionZero-inflated modelStatisticsQuasi-likelihoodPoisson distributionBinomial testEconometricsContext (archaeology)Null hypothesisBinomial (polynomial)Regression analysisPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hall (2000) has described zero‐inflated Poisson and binomial regression models that include random effects to account for excess zeros and additional sources of heterogeneity in the data. The authors of the present paper propose a general score test for the null hypothesis that variance components associated with these random effects are zero. For a zero‐inflated Poisson model with random intercept, the new test reduces to an alternative to the overdispersion test of Ridout, Demério & Hinde (2001). The authors also examine their general test in the special case of the zero‐inflated binomial model with random intercept and propose an overdispersion test in that context which is based on a beta‐binomial alternative.

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)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.277
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.277
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations74
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207