MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114697353 · doi:10.1002/cjs.10014

Likelihood analysis of joint marginal and conditional models for longitudinal categorical data

2009· article· en· W2114697353 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Baojiang Chen, Grace Y. Yi, Richard J. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorical variableCovariateEconometricsConsistency (knowledge bases)Marginal modelEstimatorComputer scienceStatisticsInferenceStatistical inferenceRandom effects modelMarginal likelihoodMissing dataMathematicsMaximum likelihoodArtificial intelligenceRegression analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The authors develop a Markov model for the analysis of longitudinal categorical data which facilitates modelling both marginal and conditional structures. A likelihood formulation is employed for inference, so the resulting estimators enjoy the optimal properties such as efficiency and consistency, and remain consistent when data are missing at random. Simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed method performs well under a variety of situations. Application to data from a smoking prevention study illustrates the utility of the model and interpretation of covariate effects. The Canadian Journal of Statistics © 2009 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 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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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