MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416322124 · doi:10.3390/stats8040110

Prediction Inferences for Finite Population Totals Using Longitudinal Survey Data

2025· article· en· W4416322124 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStats · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovariateRegression analysisSampling designSampling (signal processing)RegressionCluster samplingCorrelationSample (material)Poisson sampling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.519
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.012 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it