Handling missing data in consumer hedonic tests arising from direct scaling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In sensory evaluation, it may be necessary to design experiments that yield incomplete data sets. As such, sensory scientists will need to utilize statistical methods capable of handling data sets with missing values. This article demonstrates the advantages of a model‐based imputation procedure that simultaneously accounts for heterogeneity while imputing. We compare this model‐based approach to the current state‐of‐the‐art imputation procedures using two real data sets that arose from central location tests. These data sets contain missing values by design. In addition, these data sets have two data sets nested within each of them. We use these nested data sets to validate the results. Compared to the considered state‐of‐the‐art imputation procedures, we find evidence that the model‐based approach is able to recover the group structure and key characteristics of the data sets when a high percentage of the data are missing. Practical applications The model‐based imputation procedure presented in this manuscript is used to analyse incomplete multivariate data sets arising from central location tests. It can be used to analyse incomplete mulitvariate data sets where there is correlation among the variables. Examples include data arising from high fatigue studies, just‐about‐right scale, free choice profiling, or from the ideal profile method.
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 | 0.067 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".