Analysis of Longitudinal Binomial Data with Positive Association between the Number of Successes and the Number of Failures: An Application to Stock Instability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous methods have been developed for longitudinal binomial data in the literature. These traditional methods are reasonable for longitudinal binomial data with a negative association between the number of successes and the number of failures over time; however, a positive association may occur between the number of successes and the number of failures over time in some behaviour, economic, disease aggregation and toxicological studies as the numbers of trials are often random. In this paper, we propose a joint Poisson mixed modelling approach to longitudinal binomial data with a positive association between longitudinal counts of successes and longitudinal counts of failures. This approach can accommodate both a random and zero number of trials. It can also accommodate overdispersion and zero inflation in the number of successes and the number of failures. An optimal estimation method for our model has been developed using the orthodox best linear unbiased predictors. Our approach not only provides robust inference against misspecified random effects distributions, but also consolidates the subject-specific and population-averaged inferences. The usefulness of our approach is illustrated with an analysis of quarterly bivariate count data of stock daily limit-ups and limit-downs.
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 | 0.030 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".