Assessing the validity of weighted generalized estimating equations
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
The inverse probability weighted generalized estimating equations approach (Robins et al. 1994; Robins et al. 1995), effectively removes bias and provides valid statistical inference for regression parameter estimation in marginal models when longitudinal data contain missing values. The validity of the weighted generalized estimating equations regarding consistent estimation depends on whether the underlying missing data process is properly modelled. However, there is little work available to examine whether or not this condition holds. In this paper we propose a test constructed from two sets of estimating equations: one set is known to be unbiased, but the other set is not known. We utilize the quadratic inference function (Qu et al. 2000) method to assess their compatibility, which is equivalent to testing for the validity of the weighted generalized estimating equations approach. We conduct simulation studies to assess the performance of the proposed method. The test procedure is illustrated through a real data example.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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