MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214879208 · doi:10.22215/etd/2013-10011

Order Restricted Testing of Random Effects in Generalized Linear Mixed Models

2013· dissertation· en· W4214879208 on OpenAlexaff
Voleak Choeurng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsGeneralized linear mixed modelWald testRandom effects modelMixed modelMathematicsStatisticsGeneralized linear modelUnobservableLikelihood-ratio testHierarchical generalized linear modelTest statisticGeneralized estimating equationStatisticApplied mathematicsScore testGeneralized linear array modelQuasi-likelihoodInferenceStatistical hypothesis testingEconometricsCount dataComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) have been used in many areas of research to analyze longitudinal and clustered data with non-normal responses.In addition to the fixed effects parameters found in the generalized linear model (GLM), variance components associated with unobservable random effects are estimated in the GLMM.Moreover, it is well understood that order restricted inference methods that properly incorporate additional information by way of a restricted parameter space are more efficient than procedures that ignore this information.In this thesis, a distance statistic based on the Wald statistic is suggested for order restricted tests on the random components in the mixed model.The null distributions of the distance and the likelihood ratio test statistics are shown to be asymptotically equivalent and that of a chi-bar-square.An analysis conducted on data extracted from the 2011 National Youth Tobacco Survey will serve as an illustration of the proposed testing procedure.

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)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.429
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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.429
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207