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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

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