Bayesian sensitivity analyses for hidden sub‐populations in weighted sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we propose several Bayesian model‐based approaches for sensitivity analyses on assessments of population averages and measures of association under complex models. In particular, the proposed methods adjust for a potential impact from a hidden sub‐population when weighted sampling from the non‐hidden sub‐population is possible. Bayesian models are presented for estimating population medical expenditure and health care utilization, as well as measures of association with a binary covariate. Large‐sample limiting versions of the posteriors are obtained for all the models. Using Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data, in which individuals with higher expenditures and more frequent health care visits are more likely to be included, we illustrate how the assumption about the hidden proportion of never‐respondents may impact the final estimates of expenditure, utilization, and measures of association with a binary covariate. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 42: 436–450; 2014 © 2014 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 | 0.179 | 0.462 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".