Calibrated Imputation in Surveys Under a Quasi-Model-Assisted Approach
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
Summary We propose to use calibrated imputation to compensate for missing values. This technique consists of finding final imputed values that are as close as possible to preliminary imputed values and are calibrated to satisfy constraints. Preliminary imputed values, potentially justified by an imputation model, are obtained through deterministic single imputation. Using appropriate constraints, the resulting imputed estimator is asymptotically unbiased for estimation of linear population parameters such as domain totals. A quasi-model-assisted approach is considered in the sense that inferences do not depend on the validity of an imputation model and are made with respect to the sampling design and a non-response model. An imputation model may still be used to generate imputed values and thus to improve the efficiency of the imputed estimator. This approach has the characteristic of handling naturally the situation where more than one imputation method is used owing to missing values in the variables that are used to obtain imputed values. We use the Taylor linearization technique to obtain a variance estimator under a general non-response model. For the logistic non-response model, we show that ignoring the effect of estimating the non-response model parameters leads to overestimating the variance of the imputed estimator. In practice, the overestimation is expected to be moderate or even negligible, as shown in a simulation study.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it