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 OpenAlexafffund
Seema Zubair, Sanjoy K. Sinha

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Statistical ResearchSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207