Controlling the bias of robust small-area estimators
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
Sinha & Rao (2009) proposed estimation procedures designed for small-area means, based on robustified maximum likelihood estimators and robust empirical best linear unbiased predictors. Their methods are of the plug-in type and may be biased. Bias-corrected estimators have been proposed by Chambers et al. (2013). Here, we investigate two new approaches: one relying on the work of Chambers (1986), and the second using the concept of conditional bias to measure the influence of units in the population. These two classes of estimators also include correction terms for the bias but are both fully bias-corrected, in the sense that the corrections account for the potential impact of the other domains on the small area of interest. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that the Sinha–Rao method and the bias-adjusted estimator of Chambers et al. (2013) may exhibit a large bias, while the new procedures often offer lower bias and mean squared error. A parametric bootstrap procedure is considered for constructing confidence intervals.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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