MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SMALL AREA ESTIMATION USING SURVEY WEIGHTS WITH FUNCTIONAL MEASUREMENT ERROR IN THE COVARIATE

2011· article· en· W1870121983 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmoud Torabi

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJackknife resamplingCovariateStatisticsEstimatorSmall area estimationMathematicsMean squared errorConsistency (knowledge bases)Observational errorLinear regressionRegression analysisErrors-in-variables modelsRegressionSample size determinationEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nested error linear regression models using survey weights have been studied in small area estimation to obtain efficient model-based and design-consistent estimators of small area means. The covariates in these nested error linear regression models are not subject to measurement errors. In practical applications, however, there are many situations in which the covariates are subject to measurement errors. In this paper, we develop a nested error linear regression model with an area-level covariate subject to functional measurement error. In particular, we propose a pseudo-empirical Bayes (PEB) predictor to estimate small area means. This predictor borrows strength across areas through the model and makes use of the survey weights to preserve the design consistency as the area sample size increases. We also employ a jackknife method to estimate the mean squared prediction error (MSPE) of the PEB predictor. Finally, we report the results of a simulation study on the performance of our PEB predictor and associated jackknife MSPE estimator.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.449
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.083 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207