Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present regression models (GLM) for the class of Conway-Maxwell-Poisson (Com-Poisson) distributions. This class of models include the Com-Poisson, the Com-Poisson negative binomial, the Generalized Com-Poisson and the Extended Com-Poisson distributions, all of which have been presented in various literatures within the last five years. While these distributions have been applied most especially to frequency count data exhibiting over or under dispersion, not much has been presented in the application of this class of models to data having several covariates (the exception being the Com-Poisson itself). Thus in this paper, we present the generalized linear model formulation for these distributions and compare our results with the baseline Com-Poisson and Poisson models. Two data sets are employed in this application. We further extended our discussion to the zero-inflated versions of these distributions and applying same to a well established data with having 64\% zero observations. All the models are fitted using SAS PROC NLMIXED. In all cases, empirical means and variances are generated which leads to our ability to compute the Wald's goodness-of-fit test statistic for all the models employed in this paper.
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 | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.005 |
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".