Obtaining Predictions from Models Fit to Multiply Imputed Data
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
Obtaining predictions from regression models fit to multiply imputed data can be challenging because treatments of multiple imputation seldom give clear guidance on how predictions can be calculated, and because available software often does not have built-in routines for performing the necessary calculations. This research note reviews how predictions can be obtained using Rubin’s rules, that is, by being estimated separately in each imputed data set and then combined. It then demonstrates that predictions can also be calculated directly from the final analysis model. Both approaches yield identical results when predictions rely solely on linear transformations of the coefficients and calculate standard errors using the delta method and diverge only slightly when using nonlinear transformations. However, calculation from the final model is faster, easier to implement, and generates predictions with a clearer relationship to model coefficients. These principles are illustrated using data from the General Social Survey and with a simulation.
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 | 0.021 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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