Identifying the Factors that Influence Change in SEBD Using Logistic Regression Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple linear regression and ANOVA models are widely used in applications since they provide effective statistical tools for assessing the relationship between a continuous dependent variable and several predictors. However these models rely heavily on linearity and normality assumptions and they do not accommodate categorical dependent variables. The seminal contribution of John Nelder and Robert Wedderburn (1972) introduced the concept of Generalized Linear Models. GLMs overcome the limitations of Normal regression models and accommodate any distribution which is a member of the exponential family. Moreover, these models relate the dependent variable to the linear predictor (non-random component) through any invertible link function. Logistic regression models are GLMs that accommodate categorical dependent variables. They assume a Binomial distribution and Logit canonical link function. The iteratively re-weighted least squares algorithm using the Fisher scoring technique is employed to maximize the log-likelihood function in GLMs and estimate the model parameters. In this paper, Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the dominant factors that influence change in social, emotional and behaviour difficulties (SEBD) of Maltese children. The study comprised 486 pupils whose SEBD was assessed by both teachers and parents using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman 1997) when the children were aged 6 and 9 years old.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".