MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321075251 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11759

Method of model checking for case II interval‐censored data under the additive hazards model

2023· article· en· W4321075251 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 · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsInfimum and supremumGoodness of fitMartingale (probability theory)CovariateStatisticsConfidence intervalInterval (graph theory)MathematicsComputer scienceCounting processDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract General or case II interval‐censored data are commonly encountered in practice. We develop methods for model‐checking and goodness‐of‐fit testing for the additive hazards model with case II interval‐censored data. We propose test statistics based on the supremum of the stochastic processes derived from the cumulative sum of martingale‐based residuals over time and covariates. We approximate the distribution of the stochastic process via a simulation technique to conduct a class of graphical and numerical techniques for various purposes of model‐fitting evaluations. Simulation studies are conducted to assess the finite‐sample performance of the proposed method. A real dataset from an AIDS observational study is analyzed for illustration.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.315
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.123 · 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