MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Bayesian Semiparametric Competing Risk Model with Unobserved Heterogeneity (replication data)

2015· other· en· W6943329330 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZBW Journal Data Archive · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterfactual thinkingUnemploymentPoolingBayesian probabilityInverse Gaussian distributionBaseline (sea)Interval (graph theory)PiecewiseDuration (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper generalizes existing econometric models for censored competing risks by introducing a new flexible specification based on a piecewise linear baseline hazard, time-varying regressors, and unobserved individual heterogeneity distributed as an infinite mixture of generalized inverse Gaussian (GIG) densities, nesting the gamma kernel as a special case. A common correlated latent time effect induces dependence among risks. Our model is based on underlying latent exit decisions in continuous time while only a time interval containing the exit time is observed, as is common in economic data. We do not make the simplifying assumption of discretizing exit decisions-our competing risk model setup allows for latent exit times of different risk types to be realized within the same time period. In this setting, we derive a tractable likelihood based on scaled GIG Laplace transforms and their higher-order derivatives. We apply our approach to analyzing the determinants of unemployment duration with exits to jobs in the same industry or a different industry among unemployment insurance recipients on nationally representative individual-level survey data from the US Department of Labor. Our approach allows us to conduct a counterfactual policy experiment by changing the replacement rate: we find that the impact of its change on the probability of exit from unemployment is inelastic.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0090.004
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZBW Journal Data ArchiveFrench-language works237,207