MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281712587 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11704

Likelihood identifiability and parameter estimation with nonignorable missing data

2022· article· en· W4281712587 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissing dataIdentifiabilityInverse probability weightingEstimatorCovariateMathematicsWeightingEstimation theoryEstimating equationsStatisticsApplied mathematicsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We identify sufficient conditions to resolve the identification problem under nonignorable missingness, especially the identifiability of the observed likelihood when some of the covariate values are missing not at random, or, simultaneously, the response is also missing not at random. It is more difficult to tackle these cases than the nonignorable nonresponse case, and, to the best of our knowledge, the simultaneously missing case has never been discussed before. Under these conditions, we propose some parameter estimation methods. As an illustration, when some of the covariate values are missing not at random, we adopt a semiparametric logistic model with a tilting parameter to model the missingness mechanism and use an imputed estimating equation based on the generalized method of moments to estimate the parameters of interest and the tilting parameter simultaneously. This approach avoids the requirement for other independent surveys or a validation sample to estimate the unknown tilting parameter. The asymptotic properties of our proposed estimators are derived, and the proofs can be modified to show that our methods of estimation, which are based on inverse probability weighting, augmented inverse probability weighting, and estimating equation projection, have the same asymptotic efficiency when the tilting parameter is either known or unknown but estimated by some other method. In simulation studies, we compare our methods with various alternative approaches and find that our methods are more robust and effective.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.234 · 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