Variance estimation with hot deck imputation simulation study of three methods
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complete data methods for estimating the variances of survey estimates are biased when some data are imputed. This paper uses simulation to compare the performance of the model-assisted, the adjusted jackknife, and the multiple imputation methods for estimating the variance of a total when missing items have been imputed using hot deck imputation. The simulation studies the properties of the variance estimates for imputed estimates of totals for the full population and for domains from a single-stage disproportionate stratified sample design when underlying assumptions, such as unbiasedness of the point estimate and item responses being randomly missing within hot deck cells, do not hold. The variance estimators for full population estimates produce confidence intervals with coverage rates near the nominal level even under modest departures from the assumptions, but this finding does not apply for the domain estimates. Coverage is most sensitive to bias in the point estimates. As the simulation demonstrates, even if an imputation method gives almost unbiased estimates for the full population, estimates for domains may be very biased. 1. J. Michael Brick, Michael E. Jones and Graham Kalton, Westat, 1650 Research Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20850; Richard Valliant, University of Michigan, 1218 Lefrak Hall, College Park, MD 20742.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it