MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W89272820

Analysis of recurrent event data with environmental covariates.

2005· article· en· W89272820 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shahedul A. Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovariateEvent (particle physics)Computer scienceMachine learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study objectives. The objectives of this study were twofold. First, we used simulation to investigate three statistical methodologies for analyzing recurrent event data in the presence of environmental covariates to determine which procedure performs well under what situation. Secondly, we investigated the association between daily air pollution and hospital admissions of respiratory diseases by analyzing data from Vancouver, British Columbia. Settings and study population. Five air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), coefficient of haze (CoH), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10) were considered in this study. The event of interest was daily respiratory hospital admissions of residents (65+ years) of Vancouver, B.C. from April 01, 1995 to March 31, 1999. The dates of hospital admission for each individual's repeated visits due to respiratory diseases were recorded. Statistical methodologies. Three statistical methods were studied in this study, namely, Dewanji and Moolgavker's model (2000, 2002) based on a Poisson process assumption (Model I), Nividi's model (1998, 2002) for bidirectional case-crossover designs (Model II), and the usual time series analysis using a generalized linear model with natural splines (ns) to smooth time (Model III). A simulation method was used to evaluate and compare these procedures. The mean square error (MSE) was the criterion used for evaluation. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2005 .K45. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 44-01, page: 0379. Thesis (M.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2005.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207