A new approach to weighting and inference in sample surveys
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The validity of design-based inference is not dependent on any model assumption. However, it is well known that estimators derived through design-based theory may be inefficient for the estimation of population totals when the design weights are weakly related to the variables of interest and have widely dispersed values. We propose estimators that have the potential to improve the efficiency of any estimator derived under the design-based theory. Our main focus is limited to the improvement of the Horvitz–Thompson estimator, but we also discuss the extension to calibration estimators. The new estimators are obtained by smoothing design or calibration weights using an appropriate model. Our approach to inference requires the modelling of only one variable, the weight, and it leads to a single set of smoothed weights in multipurpose surveys. This is to be contrasted with other model-based approaches, such as the prediction approach, in which it is necessary to postulate and validate a model for each variable of interest leading potentially to variable-specific sets of weights. Our proposed approach is first justified theoretically and then evaluated through a simulation study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it