MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799810076 · doi:10.1111/insr.12263

Vine Copulas for Imputation of Monotone Non‐response

2018· article· en· W2799810076 on OpenAlexafffund
Caren Hasler, Radu V. Craiu, Louis‐Paul Rivest

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Statistical Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVine copulaBivariate analysisMathematicsJoint probability distributionCopula (linguistics)Imputation (statistics)Missing dataEconometricsStatisticsConditional probability distributionMarginal distributionRandom variable

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Monotone patterns of non‐response may occur in longitudinal studies. When the measured variables are dependent, it is beneficial to use their joint statistical model to impute the missing values. We propose to use vine copulas to factorise the density of the observed variables into a cascade of bivariate copulas that yield a flexible model of their joint distribution. The structure of the vine depends on the non‐response pattern. We propose a method to select the model, to estimate the parameters of the bivariate copulas of the selected model and to impute using the constructed model. The imputed values are drawn from the conditional distribution of the missing values, given the observed data. We discuss the generalisation of our results to more global non‐response patterns.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.118
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.118
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.006
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.409 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Statistical ReviewSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207