Judgment post‐stratification in finite mixture modeling: An example in estimating the prevalence of osteoporosis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Judgment post-stratification is used to supplement observations taken from finite mixture models with additional easy to obtain rank information and incorporate it in the estimation of model parameters. To do this, sampled units are post-stratified on ranks by randomly selecting comparison sets for each unit from the underlying population and assigning ranks to them using available auxiliary information or judgment ranking. This results in a set of independent order statistics from the underlying model, where the number of units in each rank class is random. We consider cases where one or more rankers with different ranking abilities are used to provide judgment ranks. The judgment ranks are then combined to produce a strength of agreement measure for each observation. This strength measure is implemented in the maximum likelihood estimation of model parameters via a suitable expectation maximization algorithm. Simulation studies are conducted to evaluate the performance of the estimators with or without the extra rank information. Results are applied to bone mineral density data from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to estimate the prevalence of osteoporosis in adult women aged 50 and over.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it