Efficient Estimation of Quadratic Finite Population Functions in the Presence of Auxiliary Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By viewing quadratic and other second-order finite population functions as totals or means over a derived synthetic finite population, we show that the recently proposed model calibration and pseudoempirical likelihood methods for effective use of auxiliary information from survey data can be readily extended to obtain efficient estimators of quadratic and other second-order finite population functions. In particular, estimation of a finite population variance, covariance, or variance of a linear estimator can be greatly improved when auxiliary information is available. The proposed methods are model assisted in that the resulting estimators are asymptotically design unbiased irrespective of the correctness of a working model but very efficient if the working model is nearly correct. They have a number of attractive features, which include applicability to a general sampling design, incorporation of information on possibly multivariate auxiliary variables, and the ability to entertain linear or nonlinear working models, and they result in nonnegative estimates for certain strictly positive quantities such as variances. Several existing estimators are shown to be special cases of the proposed general methodology under a linear working model.
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 | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".