Composite empirical likelihood for multisample clustered 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
In many applications, data cluster. Failing to take the cluster structure into consideration generally leads to underestimated variances of point estimators and inflated type I errors in hypothesis tests. Many circumstance-dependent approaches have been developed to handle clustered data. A working covariance matrix may be used in generalised estimating equations. One may throw out the cluster structure and use only the cluster means, or explicitly model the cluster structure. Our interest is the case where multiple samples of clustered data are collected, and the population quantiles are particularly important. We develop a composite empirical likelihood for clustered data under a density ratio model. This approach avoids parametric assumptions on the population distributions or the cluster structure. It efficiently utilises the common features of the multiple populations and the exchangeability of the cluster members. We also develop a cluster-based bootstrap method to provide valid variance estimation and to control the type I errors. We examine the performance of the proposed method through simulation experiments and illustrate its usage via a real-world example.
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 | 0.001 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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