MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029555586 · doi:10.1198/016214506000000195

Estimation in Multiple-Frame Surveys

2006· article· en· W2029555586 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

VenueJournal of the American Statistical Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorFrame (networking)Sampling (signal processing)Variance (accounting)Sampling frameStatisticsMathematicsPopulationMaximum likelihoodM-estimatorComputer scienceEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractMultiple-frame surveys are commonly used to decrease costs of sampling or to reduce undercoverage that could occur if only one sampling frame were used. We describe potential uses and examples of multiple-frame surveys. We then derive optimal linear estimators and pseudo–maximum likelihood estimators for the population total when samples are taken independently from each frame using probability sampling designs. We explore the properties of these estimators theoretically and through a simulation study. We also derive variance estimators and discuss some practical problems that may be encountered in multiple-frame surveys.KEY WORDS: Complex surveyDual-frame surveyPopulation sizePseudo–maximum likelihood estimationSampling weight

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.304 · 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