MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168722699 · doi:10.1002/cjs.5550340202

Survival analysis based on the proportional hazards model and survey data

2006· article· en· W2168722699 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Christian Boudreau, Jerald F. Lawless

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWeightingEconometricsComputer scienceSurvey data collectionSampling (signal processing)StatisticsSampling designMissing dataProportional hazards modelData miningMathematicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The authors propose methods based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that account for the fact that the data have been collected according to a complex survey design. The methods they propose are based on the theory of estimating equations in conjunction with empirical process theory. The authors also discuss issues concerning ignorable sampling design, and the use of weighted and unweighted procedures. They illustrate their methodology by an analysis of jobless spells in Statistics Canada's Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics. They discuss briefly problems concerning weighting, model checking, and missing or mismeasured data. They also identify areas for further research.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.259
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.097 · 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

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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