Prediction Inferences for Finite Population Totals Using Longitudinal Survey Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an infinite-/super-population (SP) setup, regression analysis of longitudinal data, which involves repeated responses and covariates collected from a sample of independent individuals or correlated individuals belonging to a cluster such as a household/family, has been intensively studied in the statistics literature over the last three decades. In general, a longitudinal, such as an auto-correlation structure for repeated responses for an individual or a two-way cluster–longitudinal correlation structure for repeated responses from the individuals belonging to a cluster/household, are exploited to obtain consistent and efficient regression estimates. However, as opposed to the SP setup, a similar regression analysis for a finite population (FP)-based longitudinal or clustered longitudinal data using a survey sample (SS) taken from the FP-based on a suitable sampling design becomes complex, which requires first defining the FP regression and correlation (both longitudinal and/or clustered) parameters and then estimating them using appropriate sampling weighted-design unbiased (SWDU) estimating equations. The finite sampling inferences, such as predictions of longitudinal changes in FP totals, would become much more complex, meaning that it would be necessary to predict the non-sampled totals after accommodating the longitudinal and/or clustered longitudinal correlation structures. Our objective in this paper is to deal with this complex FP prediction inference by developing a design cum model (DCM)-based estimation approach. Two competitive FP total predictors, namely design-assisted model-based (DAMB) and design cum model-based (DCMB) predictors are compared using an intensive simulation study. The regression and correlation parameters involved in these prediction functions are optimally estimated using the proposed DCM-based approach.
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 | 0.021 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".