A Model-Calibration Approach to Using Complete Auxiliary Information From Survey Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suppose that the finite population consists of N identifiable units. Associated with the ith unit are the study variable, yi, and a vector of auxiliary variables, xi. The values x1, x2,…, xN are known for the entire population (i.e., complete) but yi is known only if the ith unit is selected in the sample. One of the fundamental questions is how to effectively use the complete auxiliary information at the estimation stage. In this article, a unified model-assisted framework has been attempted using a proposed model-calibration technique. The proposed model-calibration estimators can handle any linear or nonlinear working models and reduce to the conventional calibration estimators of Deville and Särndal and/or the generalized regression estimators in the linear model case. The pseudoempirical maximum likelihood estimator of Chen and Sitter, when used in this setting, gives an estimator that is asymptotically equivalent to the model-calibration estimator but with positive weights. Some existing estimators using auxiliary information are reexamined under this framework. The estimation of the finite population distribution function, using complete auxiliary information, is also considered, and estimators based on a general model are presented. Results of a limited simulation study on the performance of the proposed estimators are reported.
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 | 0.013 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".