MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367624121 · doi:10.28924/2291-8639-21-2023-40

Random and Fixed Effects Selection for Weighted Ridge

2023· article· en· W4367624121 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

VenueInternational Journal of Analysis and Applications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsRandom effects modelSelection (genetic algorithm)Model selectionFixed effects modelApplied mathematicsStatisticsMaximum likelihoodMathematical optimizationAlgorithmComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePanel data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using penalized profiled log-likelihood and penalized limited profiled log-likelihood, respectively, together with the weighted ridge penalized term, we offer a method in this study for choosing the fixed and random effects in linear mixed models. Then, we use the penalized restricted profiled log-likelihood to perform in the random effects depending on the chosen tuning parameter. Second, we use the penalized profiled log-likelihood to choose the fixed effect parameters. There is no closed-form solution for the choice of the fixed and random effects, hence the Newton-Raphson technique is employed to iteratively estimate the parameters. We use a simulation study to show how well the suggested strategy works. Lastly, we use two separate datasets to use the methods to further evaluate the newly proposed model.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.405 · 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