Obesity among Pff-reserve First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Peoples in Canada’s Provinces: Associated Factors and Secular Trends
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 structural equation modeling, when multiple imputation is used for handling missing data, model fit evaluation involves pooling likelihood-ratio test statistics across imputations. Under the normality assumption, the two most popular pooling approaches were proposed by Li et al. (Statistica Sinica, 1(1), 65-92, 1991) and Meng and Rubin (Biometrika, 79(1), 103-111, 1992). When the assumption of normality is violated, it is not clear how well these pooling approaches work with the test statistics generated from various robust estimators and multiple imputation methods. Jorgensen and colleagues (2021) implemented these pooling approaches in their R package semTools; however, no systematical evaluation has been conducted. In this simulation study, we examine the performance of these approaches in working with different imputation methods and robust estimators under nonnormality. We found that the naïve pooling approach based on Meng and Rubin (Biometrika, 79(1), 103-111, 1992; D<sub>3SN</sub>) worked the best when combining with the normal-theory-based imputation and either MLM or MLMV estimator.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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