MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MODEL-ASSISTED HIGHER-ORDER CALIBRATION OF ESTIMATORS OF VARIANCE

2005· article· en· W2022391270 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorMathematicsVariance (accounting)Population varianceStatisticsVariable (mathematics)CalibrationInferencePopulationExtremum estimatorSet (abstract data type)EconometricsM-estimatorComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In survey sampling, interest often centres on inference for the population total using information about an auxiliary variable. The variance of the estimator used plays a key role in such inference. This study develops a new set of higher-order constraints for the calibration of estimators of variance for various estimators of the population total. The proposed strategy requires an appropriate model for describing the relationship between the response and auxiliary variable, and the variance of the auxiliary variable. It is therefore referred to as a model-assisted approach. Several new estimators of variance, including the higher-order calibration estimators of the variance of the ratio and regression estimators suggested by Singh, Horn & Yu and Sitter & Wu are special cases of the proposed technique. The paper presents and discusses the results of an empirical study to compare the performance of the proposed estimators and existing counterparts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it