Two‐part regression models for longitudinal zero‐inflated count data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two‐part models are quite well established in the economic literature, since they resemble accurately a principal‐agent type model, where homogeneous, observable, counted outcomes are subject to a (prior, exogenous) selection choice. The first decision can be represented by a binary choice model, modeled using a probit or a logit link; the second can be analyzed through a truncated discrete distribution such as a truncated Poisson, negative binomial, and so on. Only recently, a particular attention has been devoted to the extension of two‐part models to handle longitudinal data. The authors discuss a semi‐parametric estimation method for dynamic two‐part models and propose a comparison with other, well‐established alternatives. Heterogeneity sources that influence the first level decision process, that is, the decision to use a certain service, are assumed to influence also the (truncated) distribution of the positive outcomes. Estimation is carried out through an EM algorithm without parametric assumptions on the random effects distribution. Furthermore, the authors investigate the extension of the finite mixture representation to allow for unobservable transition between components in each of these parts. The proposed models are discussed using empirical as well as simulated data. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 38: 197–216; 2010 © 2010 Statistical Society of Canada
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".