Restricted maximum likelihood estimation of joint mean‐covariance models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The class of joint mean‐covariance models uses the modified Cholesky decomposition of the within subject covariance matrix in order to arrive to an unconstrained, statistically meaningful reparameterisation. The new parameterisation of the covariance matrix has two sets of parameters that separately describe the variances and correlations. Thus, with the mean or regression parameters, these models have three sets of distinct parameters. In order to alleviate the problem of inefficient estimation and downward bias in the variance estimates, inherent in the maximum likelihood estimation procedure, the usual REML estimation procedure adjusts for the degrees of freedom lost due to the estimation of the mean parameters. Because of the parameterisation of the joint mean covariance models, it is possible to adapt the usual REML procedure in order to estimate the variance (correlation) parameters by taking into account the degrees of freedom lost by the estimation of both the mean and correlation (variance) parameters. To this end, here we propose adjustments to the estimation procedures based on the modified and adjusted profile likelihoods. The methods are illustrated by an application to a real data set and simulation studies. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 40: 225–242; 2012 © 2012 Statistical Society of Canada
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".