MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<scp>J</scp> oint <scp>M</scp> odels

2014· other· en· W3168529271 on OpenAlex
Darby J. S. Thompson

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConditional independenceIndependence (probability theory)Computer scienceEvent (particle physics)Joint (building)Process (computing)EconometricsLatent growth modelingLongitudinal dataArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMachine learningMathematicsData miningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Joint modeling encompasses strategies to simultaneously model several outcomes of interest. There are three principal strategies; classical joint modeling, conditional models, and conditional independence models. Likely the most pervasive area of joint modeling is in the modeling of longitudinal and time‐to‐event data; in particular, accounting for drop‐out in longitudinal data or incorporating error‐prone, sporadically measured, longitudinal outcomes in models for event times. Conditional independence is a popular strategy, which assumes the outcomes of interest are noisy, independent measures of some underlying latent process; it is this process that induces their correlation providing a tractable assumption in many practical settings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.273 · 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