How to Generate Missing Data For Simulation Studies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Missing data are common in psychological and educational research. With the improvement in computing technology in recent decades, more researchers have begun developing missing data techniques. In their research, they often conduct Monte Carlo simulation studies to compare the performances of different missing data techniques. During such simulation studies, researchers must generate missing data in the simulated dataset by deciding which data values to delete. However, in the current literature, there are limited guidelines on how to generate missing data for simulation studies. Our paper is one of the first that examines ways of generating missing data for simulation studies. I emphasize the importance of specifying missing data rules which are statistical models for generating missing data. I begin the paper by reviewing the types of missing data mechanisms and missing data patterns. I then explain how to specify missing data rules to generate missing data with different mechanisms and patterns. I emphasize the advantages and disadvantages of using different missing data rules and algorithms to generate missing data for simulation studies. Next, I discuss other important aspects of simulation studies involving missing data. I end the paper by offering recommendations for generating missing data for simulation studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it