A moving blocks empirical likelihood method for longitudinal data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the analysis of longitudinal or panel data, neglecting the serial correlations among the repeated measurements within subjects may lead to inefficient inference. In particular, when the number of repeated measurements is large, it may be desirable to model the serial correlations more generally. An appealing approach is to accommodate the serial correlations nonparametrically. In this article, we propose a moving blocks empirical likelihood method for general estimating equations. Asymptotic results are derived under sequential limits. Simulation studies are conducted to investigate the finite sample performances of the proposed methods and compare them with the elementwise and subject-wise empirical likelihood methods of Wang et al. (2010, Biometrika 97, 79-93) and the block empirical likelihood method of You et al. (2006, Can. J. Statist. 34, 79-96). An application to an AIDS longitudinal study is presented.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it