MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381736288 · doi:10.20982/tqmp.19.2.p123

Handling Planned and Unplanned Missing Data in a Longitudinal Study

2023· article· en· W4381736288 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quantitative Methods for Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissing dataLongitudinal dataComputer scienceStatisticsData miningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While analyzing data, researchers are often faced with missing values. This is especially common in longitudinal studies in which participants might skip assessments. Unwanted missing data can introduce bias in the results and should thus be handled appropriately. However, researchers can sometimes want to include missing values in their data collection design to reduce its length and cost, a method called ``planned missingness.'' This paper review the recommended practices for handling both planned and unplanned missing data, with a focus on longitudinal studies. The current guidelines suggest to either use Full Information Maximum Likelihood or Multiple Imputation. Those techniques are illustrated with R code in the context of a longitudinal study with a representative Canadian sample on the psychological impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.613
GPT teacher head0.643
Teacher spread0.030 · 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