On the Construction of Imputation Classes in Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This paper explores the problem of the construction of imputation classes using the score method, sometimes called predictive mean stratification or response propensity stratification, depending on the context. This method was studied in Thomsen (1973) , Little (1986) and Eltinge & Yansaneh (1997) . We use a different framework to evaluate the properties of the resulting imputed estimator of a population mean. In our framework, we condition on the realized sample. This enables us to considerably simplify our theoretical developments in the frequent situation where the boundaries and the number of classes are sample‐dependent. We find that the key factor for reducing the non‐response bias is to form classes homogeneous with respect to the response probabilities and/or the conditional expectation of the variable of interest. In the latter case, the non‐response/imputation variance is also reduced. Finally, we performed a simulation study to fully evaluate various versions of the score method and to compare them with a cross‐classification method, which is frequently used in practice. The results showed the superiority of the score method in general.
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 | 0.077 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".