Doubly robust point and variance estimation in the presence of imputed survey data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Imputation is often used in surveys to treat item nonresponse. It is well known that treating the imputed values as observed values may lead to substantial underestimation of the variance of the point estimators. To overcome the problem, a number of variance estimation methods have been proposed in the literature, including resampling methods such as the jackknife and the bootstrap. In this paper, we consider the problem of doubly robust inference in the presence of imputed survey data. In the doubly robust literature, point estimation has been the main focus. In this paper, using the reverse framework for variance estimation, we derive doubly robust linearization variance estimators in the case of deterministic and random regression imputation within imputation classes. Also, we study the properties of several jackknife variance estimators under both negligible and nonnegligible sampling fractions. A limited simulation study investigates the performance of various variance estimators in terms of relative bias and relative stability. Finally, the asymptotic normality of imputed estimators is established for stratified multistage designs under both deterministic and random regression imputation. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 40: 259–281; 2012 © 2012 Statistical Society of Canada
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 | 0.045 | 0.236 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".