A unified empirical likelihood approach for testing MCAR and subsequent estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For an estimation with missing data, a crucial step is to determine if the data are missing completely at random (MCAR), in which case a complete‐case analysis would suffice. Most existing tests for MCAR do not provide a method for a subsequent estimation once the MCAR is rejected. In the setting of estimating means, we propose a unified approach for testing MCAR and the subsequent estimation. Upon rejecting MCAR, the same set of weights used for testing can then be used for estimation. The resulting estimators are consistent if the missingness of each response variable depends only on a set of fully observed auxiliary variables and the true outcome regression model is among the user‐specified functions for deriving the weights. The proposed method is based on the calibration idea from survey sampling literature and the empirical likelihood theory.
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 | 0.110 | 0.361 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".