MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Longitudinal Studies

2014· other· en· W4244039756 on OpenAlexaff
C. B. Dean, X. Joan Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLongitudinal studyLongitudinal dataPsychologyComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A longitudinal study observes its subjects repeatedly over time. The subjects can be individuals or pre existing groups of interest, such as species and regions, and the time refers to the metameter for the occasions of observation. Longitudinal data allow one to separate cohort and time effects. This article summarizes the special features of longitudinal studies, and overviews statistical study design and data analysis in longitudinal 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.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.009

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference OnlineSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207