Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the literature of statistical analysis with missing data there is a significant gap in statistical inference for missing data mechanisms especially for nonmonotone missing data, which has essentially restricted the use of the estimation methods which require estimating the missing data mechanisms. For example, the inverse probability weighting methods (Horvitz & Thompson, 1952; Little & Rubin, 2002), including the popular augmented inverse probability weighting (Robins et al, 1994), depend on sufficient models for the missing data mechanisms to reduce estimation bias while improving estimation efficiency. This research proposes a semiparametric likelihood method for estimating missing data mechanisms where an EM algorithm with closed form expressions for both E-step and M-step is used in evaluating the estimate (Zhao et al, 2009; Zhao, 2020). The asymptotic variance of the proposed estimator is estimated from the profile score function. The methods are general and robust. Simulation studies in various missing data settings are performed to examine the finite sample performance of the proposed method. Finally, we analysis the missing data mechanism of Duke cardiac catheterization coronary artery disease diagnostic data to illustrate the method.
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 | 0.126 | 0.350 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".