On measuring the variability of small area estimators under a basic area level model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper based on a basic area level model we obtain second-order accurate approximations to the mean squared error of model-based small area estimators, using the Fay & Herriot (1979) iterative method of estimating the model variance based on weighted residual sum of squares. We also obtain mean squared error estimators unbiased to second order. Based on simulations, we compare the finite-sample performance of our mean squared error estimators with those based on method-of-moments, maximum likelihood and residual maximum likelihood estimators of the model variance. Our results suggest that the Fay–Herriot method performs better, in terms of relative bias of mean squared error estimators, than the other methods across different combinations of number of areas, pattern of sampling variances and distribution of small area effects. We also derive a noninformative prior on the model parameters for which the posterior variance of a small area mean is second-order unbiased for the mean squared error. The posterior variance based on such a prior possesses both Bayesian and frequentist interpretations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".