Empirical likelihood inference for non-randomized pretest-posttest studies with missing data
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
Pretest-posttest studies are commonly used for assessing the effect of a treatment or an intervention. We propose an empirical likelihood based approach to both testing and estimation of the treatment effect in non-randomized pretest-posttest studies where the posttest outcomes are subject to missingness. The proposed empirical likelihood ratio test and the estimation procedure are multiply robust in the sense that multiple working models are allowed for the propensity score of treatment assignment, the missingness probability and the outcome regression, and the validity of the test and the estimation requires only a certain combination of those multiple working models to be correctly specified. An empirical likelihood ratio confidence interval can be constructed for the treatment effect and has better coverage probabilities than confidence intervals based on the Wald statistic. Simulations are conducted to demonstrate the finite-sample performances of the proposed methods.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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