MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361286552 · doi:10.1177/00811750231151949

The Anatomy of Cohort Analysis: Decomposing Comparative Cohort Careers

2023· article· en· W4361286552 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Methodology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortComputer scienceEconometricsData sciencePsychologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a widely influential essay, Ryder argued that to understand social change, researchers should compare cohort careers, contrasting how different cohorts change over the life cycle with respect to some outcome. Ryder, however, provided few technical details on how to actually conduct a cohort analysis. In this article, the authors develop a framework for analyzing temporally structured data grounded in the construction, comparison, and decomposition of cohort careers. The authors begin by illustrating how one can analyze age-period-cohort (APC) data by constructing graphs of cohort careers. Although a useful starting point, the major problem with this approach is that the graphs are typically of sufficient complexity that it can be difficult, if not impossible, to discern the underlying trends and patterns in the data. To provide a more useful foundation for cohort analysis, the authors therefore introduce three distinct improvements over the purely graphical approach. First, they provide a mathematical definition of a cohort career, demonstrating how the underlying parameters of interest can be estimated using a reparameterized version of the conventional APC model. The authors call this the life cycle and social change (LC-SC) model. Second, they contrast the proposed model with two alternative three-factor APC models and all logically possible two-factor models, showing that none of these other models are adequate for fully representing Ryder’s ideas. Third, the authors present the article’s major accomplishment: using the LC-SC model, they show how a collection of cohort careers can be decomposed into just four basic components: a curve representing an overall intracohort trend (or life cycle change); a curve representing an overall intercohort trend (or social change); a set of common cross-period temporal fluctuations that permit variability across cohort careers; and, finally, a set of terms representing cell-specific heterogeneity (or, equivalently, interactions among age, period, and/or cohort). As the authors demonstrate, these parts can be reassembled into simpler versions of cohort careers, revealing underlying trends and patterns that may not be evident otherwise. The authors illustrate this approach by analyzing trends in political party strength in the General Social Survey.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.278 · 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