MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081542665 · doi:10.47302/jsr.2020540102

Marginal models for longitudinal count data with dropouts

2020· article· en· W3081542665 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Statistical Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEstimatorGeneralized estimating equationCount dataEstimating equationsMathematicsStatisticsLongitudinal dataMissing dataDropout (neural networks)Generalized linear modelMarginal modelMonotone polygonApplied mathematicsSeries (stratigraphy)Sample (material)EconometricsRegression analysisComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we investigate marginal models for analyzing incomplete longitudinal count data with dropouts. Specifically, we explore commonly used generalized estimating equations and weighted generalized estimating equations for fitting log-linear models to count data in the presence of monotone missing responses. A series of simulations were carried out to examine the finite-sample properties of the estimators in the presence of both correctly specified and misspecified dropout mechanisms. An application is provided using actual longitudinal survey data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) (HRS, 2019)

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 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)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.583
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.029 · 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