Source author record

David Firth

David Firth appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
5topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Jeffreys-prior penalty, finiteness and shrinkage in binomial-response generalized linear models

Penalization of the likelihood by Jeffreys' invariant prior, or by a positive power thereof, is shown to produce finite-valued maximum penalized likelihood estimates in a broad class of binomial generalized linear models. The class of models includes logistic regression, where the Jeffreys-prior penalty is known additionally to reduce the asymptotic bias of the maximum likelihood estimator; and also models with other commonly used link functions such as probit and log-log. Shrinkage towards equiprobability across observations, relative to the maximum likelihood estimator, is established theoretically and is studied through illustrative examples. Some implications of finiteness and shrinkage for inference are discussed, particularly when inference is based on Wald-type procedures. A widely applicable procedure is developed for computation of maximum penalized likelihood estimates, by using repeated maximum likelihood fits with iteratively adjusted binomial responses and totals. These theoretical results and methods underpin the increasingly widespread use of reduced-bias and similarly penalized binomial regression models in many applied fields.

preprint2015arXiv

Statistical Modelling of Citation Exchange Between Statistics Journals

Rankings of scholarly journals based on citation data are often met with skepticism by the scientific community. Part of the skepticism is due to disparity between the common perception of journals' prestige and their ranking based on citation counts. A more serious concern is the inappropriate use of journal rankings to evaluate the scientific influence of authors. This paper focuses on analysis of the table of cross-citations among a selection of Statistics journals. Data are collected from the Web of Science database published by Thomson Reuters. Our results suggest that modelling the exchange of citations between journals is useful to highlight the most prestigious journals, but also that journal citation data are characterized by considerable heterogeneity, which needs to be properly summarized. Inferential conclusions require care in order to avoid potential over-interpretation of insignificant differences between journal ratings. Comparison with published ratings of institutions from the UK's Research Assessment Exercise shows strong correlation at aggregate level between assessed research quality and journal citation `export scores' within the discipline of Statistics.