On efficient inferences in familial-longitudinal binary models with two variance components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with multiple (two or more) sources of random effects is considered, the inferences may vary depending on the nature of the random effects. For example, the inference in GLMMs with two independent random effects with two distinct components of dispersion will be different from the inference in GLMMs with two random effects in a two factor factorial design set-up. In this paper, we consider a familial-longitudinal model for repeated binary data where the binary response of an individual member of a family at a given time point is assumed to be influenced by the past responses of the member as well as two but independent sources of random family effects. For the estimation of the parameters of the proposed model, we discuss the well-known maximum-likelihood (ML) method as well as a generalized quasi-likelihood (GQL) approach. The main objective of the paper is to examine the relative asymptotic efficiency performance of the ML and GQL estimators for the regression effects, dynamic (longitudinal) dependence and variance parameters of the random family effects from two sources.
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 | 0.069 | 0.272 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".