A Parametric Test to Discriminate Between a Linear Regression Model and a Linear Latent Growth Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In longitudinal studies with subjects measured repeatedly across time, an important problem is how to select a model generating data by choosing between a linear regression model and a linear latent growth model. Approaches based both on information criteria and asymptotic hypothesis tests of the variances of ''random'' components are widely used but not completely satisfactory. We propose a test statistic based on the trace of the product of an estimate of a variance covariance matrix defined when data come from a linear regression model and a sample variance covariance matrix. We studied the sampling distribution of the test statistic giving a representation in terms of an infinite series of generalized F-distributions. Knowledge about this distribution allows us to make inference within a classical hypothesis testing ramework. The test statistic can be used by itself to discriminate between the two models and/or, if duly modified, it can be used to test randomness on single components. Moreover, in conjunction with some model selection criteria, it gives additional information which can help in choosing the model.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.032 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".