MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921173295 · doi:10.1080/03610926.2019.1584310

Composite likelihood for aggregate data from clustered multistate processes under intermittent observation

2019· article· en· W2921173295 on OpenAlexafffund
Shu Jiang, Richard J. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and Methods · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAggregate (composite)InferenceCluster analysisMarkov chainBasis (linear algebra)Computer scienceRandom effects modelVariance (accounting)Statistical inferenceStatisticsEconometricsMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Markov processes offer a useful basis for modeling the progression of organisms through successive stages of their life cycle. When organisms are examined intermittently in developmental studies, likelihoods can be constructed based on the resulting panel data in terms of transition probability functions. In some settings however, organisms cannot be tracked individually due to a difficulty in identifying distinct individuals, and in such cases aggregate counts of the number of organisms in different stages of development are recorded at successive time points. We consider the setting in which such aggregate counts are available for each of a number of tanks in a developmental study. We develop methods which accommodate clustering of the transition rates within tanks using a marginal modeling approach followed by robust variance estimation, and through use of a random effects model. Composite likelihood is proposed as a basis of inference in both settings. An extension which incorporates mortality is also discussed. The proposed methods are shown to perform well in empirical studies and are applied in an illustrative example on the growth of the Arabidopsis thaliana plant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and MethodsSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207