MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1543408068 · doi:10.1002/0470011815.b2a16077

Systematic Sampling Methods

2005· other· en· W1543408068 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

VenueEncyclopedia of Biostatistics · 2005
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic samplingSampling (signal processing)Simple random sampleSampling designStatisticsMathematicsEstimatorVariance (accounting)Slice samplingStratified samplingBias of an estimatorPoisson samplingPopulationBest linear unbiased predictionSample (material)Importance samplingComputer scienceMinimum-variance unbiased estimatorMonte Carlo methodSelection (genetic algorithm)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Systematic sampling is a sampling technique that is used for its simplicity and convenience. At its simplest, a systematic sample is obtained by selecting a random start near the beginning of the population list and then taking every unit equally spaced thereafter. The technique can be generalized to include systematic sampling schemes with probability proportional to an auxiliary variable. In many situations, systematic sampling is statistically efficient when compared to other sampling schemes. This is especially true in populations with linear and quadratic trends and autocorrelated populations. For populations in random order systematic sampling, it is equivalent to simple random sampling. A major drawback to systematic sampling is that it does not admit an unbiased estimator of variance with respect to the sampling design. Variance estimation must rely on an assumed underlying structure in the population.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.317 · 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