A State Space Modeling Approach to Mediation Analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mediation is a causal process that evolves over time. Thus, a study of mediation requires data collected throughout the process. However, most applications of mediation analysis use cross-sectional rather than longitudinal data. Another implicit assumption commonly made in longitudinal designs for mediation analysis is that the same mediation process universally applies to all members of the population under investigation. This assumption ignores the important issue of ergodicity before aggregating the data across subjects. We first argue that there exists a discrepancy between the concept of mediation and the research designs that are typically used to investigate it. Second, based on the concept of ergodicity, we argue that a given mediation process probably is not equally valid for all individuals in a population. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to propose a two-faceted solution. The first facet of the solution is that we advocate a single-subject time-series design that aligns data collection with researchers’ conceptual understanding of mediation. The second facet is to introduce a flexible statistical method—the state space model—as an ideal technique to analyze single-subject time series data in mediation studies. We provide an overview of the state space method and illustrative applications using both simulated and real time series data. Finally, we discuss additional issues related to research design and modeling.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it