MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126367292 · doi:10.1027/1614-2241/a000032

Two-Part Modeling of Semicontinuous Longitudinal Variables

2011· article· en· W2126367292 on OpenAlexaff
David B. Flora

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovariateOutcome (game theory)Zero (linguistics)MathematicsStatisticsVariable (mathematics)Interpretation (philosophy)EconometricsRange (aeronautics)Latent variableGrowth curve (statistics)Maximum likelihoodContinuous variableComputer scienceMathematical economicsEngineeringMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents specification of two approaches for analyzing a longitudinally observed semicontinuous variable, in which a large proportion of observations equal zero while remaining observations follow a continuous distribution. Both approaches utilize two-part models, where Part 1 models the zero values, such that hypotheses can be examined regarding the likelihood that the outcome equals zero at a particular time point (using the Olsen & Schafer model) or regarding the likelihood of observing the initial onset of a nonzero value (using the “launch model”) and Part 2 for the remaining continuous portion of the outcome variable is a standard latent growth curve model. However, interpretation of Part 2 depends on the approach used in Part 1. Parts 1 and 2 are jointly estimated, allowing them to be correlated, and covariates may have differing relationships across the two parts. The approaches are illustrated using a longitudinal study of adolescent alcohol use.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.482
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.043 · 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethodologySame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207