Semi‐parametric small‐area estimation by combining time‐series and cross‐sectional data methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary In survey sampling, policymaking regarding the allocation of resources to subgroups (called small areas) or the determination of subgroups with specific properties in a population should be based on reliable estimates. Information, however, is often collected at a different scale than that of these subgroups; hence, the estimation can only be obtained on finer scale data. Parametric mixed models are commonly used in small‐area estimation. The relationship between predictors and response, however, may not be linear in some real situations. Recently, small‐area estimation using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a penalised spline (P‐spline) regression model, for the fixed part of the model, has been proposed to analyse cross‐sectional responses, both normal and non‐normal. However, there are many situations in which the responses in small areas are serially dependent over time. Such a situation is exemplified by a data set on the annual number of visits to physicians by patients seeking treatment for asthma, in different areas of Manitoba, Canada. In cases where covariates that can possibly predict physician visits by asthma patients (e.g. age and genetic and environmental factors) may not have a linear relationship with the response, new models for analysing such data sets are required. In the current work, using both time‐series and cross‐sectional data methods, we propose P‐spline regression models for small‐area estimation under GLMMs. Our proposed model covers both normal and non‐normal responses. In particular, the empirical best predictors of small‐area parameters and their corresponding prediction intervals are studied with the maximum likelihood estimation approach being used to estimate the model parameters. The performance of the proposed approach is evaluated using some simulations and also by analysing two real data sets (precipitation and asthma).
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 | 0.037 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".