Multilevel Modelling of Hierarchical Data in Developmental Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report attempts to give nontechnical readers some insight into how a multilevel modelling framework can be used in longitudinal studies to assess contextual influences on child development when study samples arise from naturally formed groupings. We hope to achieve this objective by: (1) discussing the types of variables and research designs used for collecting developmental data; (2) presenting the methods and data requirements associated with two statistical approaches to developmental data--growth curve modelling and discrete-time survival analysis; (3) describing the multilevel extensions of these approaches, which can be used when the study of development includes intact clusters or naturally formed groupings; (4) demonstrating the flexibility of these two approaches for addressing a variety of research questions; and (5) placing the multilevel framework developed in this report in the context of some important issues, alternative approaches, and recent developments. We hope that readers new to these methods are able to visualize the possibility of using them to advance their work.
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 | 0.075 | 0.209 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".