Synthetic data method to incorporate external information into a current study
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
Abstract We consider the situation where there is a known regression model that can be used to predict an outcome, Y , from a set of predictor variables X . A new variable B is expected to enhance the prediction of Y . A dataset of size n containing Y , X and B is available, and the challenge is to build an improved model for Y | X , B that uses both the available individual level data and some summary information obtained from the known model for Y | X . We propose a synthetic data approach, which consists of creating m additional synthetic data observations, and then analyzing the combined dataset of size n + m to estimate the parameters of the Y | X , B model. This combined dataset of size n + m now has missing values of B for m of the observations, and is analyzed using methods that can handle missing data (e.g., multiple imputation). We present simulation studies and illustrate the method using data from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. Though the synthetic data method is applicable to a general regression context, to provide some justification, we show in two special cases that the asymptotic variances of the parameter estimates in the Y | X , B model are identical to those from an alternative constrained maximum likelihood estimation approach. This correspondence in special cases and the method's broad applicability makes it appealing for use across diverse scenarios. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 47: 580–603; 2019 © 2019 Statistical Society of Canada
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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