MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154947088 · doi:10.1111/rssa.12678

Modified Poisson Regression Analysis of Grouped and Right-Censored Counts

2021· article· en· W3154947088 on OpenAlexaff
Qiang Fu, Tian-Yi Zhou, Xin Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersResearch Grants Council, University Grants Committee
KeywordsPoisson regressionCensoring (clinical trials)EstimatorPoisson distributionStatisticsLogistic regressionEconometricsInferenceStatistical inferenceMathematicsSample (material)Computer sciencePsychologyDemographySociologyArtificial intelligencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Grouped and right-censored (GRC) counts are widely used in criminology, demography, epidemiology, marketing, sociology, psychology and other related disciplines to study behavioural and event frequencies, especially when sensitive research topics or individuals with possibly lower cognitive capacities are at stake. Yet, the co-existence of grouping and right-censoring poses major difficulties in regression analysis. To implement generalised linear regression of GRC counts, we derive modified Poisson estimators and their asymptotic properties, develop a hybrid line search algorithm for parameter inference, demonstrate the finite-sample performance of these estimators via simulation, and evaluate its empirical applicability based on survey data of drug use in America. This method has a clear methodological advantage over the ordered logistic model for analysing GRC counts.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society)Same topicSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207