Combining Inverse Probability Weighting and Multiple Imputation to Improve Robustness of Estimation
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
Inverse probability weighting (IPW) and multiple imputation are two widely adopted approaches dealing with missing data. The former models the selection probability, and the latter models data distribution. Consistent estimation requires correct specification of corresponding models. Although the augmented IPW method provides an extra layer of protection on consistency, it is usually not sufficient in practice as the true data‐generating process is unknown. This paper proposes a method combining the two approaches in the same spirit of calibration in sampling survey literature. Multiple models for both the selection probability and data distribution can be simultaneously accounted for, and the resulting estimator is consistent if any model is correctly specified. The proposed method is within the framework of estimating equations and is general enough to cover regression analysis with missing outcomes and/or missing covariates. Results on both theoretical and numerical investigation are provided.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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