MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413872284 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2025.7.001

Bayesian inference for zero-inflated negative binomial lindley model of overdispersed count data with excess zeros

2025· article· en· W4413872284 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
cenyu hu, Ling Fang, Xianming Shi, Yalong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCount dataNegative binomial distributionBayesian probabilityStatisticsMathematicsInferenceBayesian inferenceZero-inflated modelEconometricsZero (linguistics)Binomial (polynomial)Binomial distributionStatistical inferenceQuasi-likelihoodPoisson distributionComputer sciencePoisson regressionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article aims to develop the zero-inflated negative binomial-Lindley regression model to address the complexity of count data with zero excess and over-dispersion. The proposed compound distribution combines the zero generation mechanism with the Lindley distribution process, and the Bayesian hierarchical framework with MCMC sampling is adopted for parameter estimation, overcoming the limitations of traditional count models in handling complex data structures. The model is applied to two real datasets, one of which is characterized by a large number of zero observations. Its performance is compared with that of the NB-L and NB model. The results show that when the dataset presents the large number of zero values and the long tail feature, the ZINB-L GLM describes the dataset better than the other models.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering ComputationsSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207