MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055071270 · doi:10.5539/mas.v8n5p70

Ratio Estimators Using Coefficient of Variation and Coefficient of Correlation

2014· article· en· W2055071270 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Prayad Sangngam

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFaculty of Science, Silpakorn UniversitySilpakorn University
KeywordsEstimatorStatisticsMathematicsSimple random sampleRatio estimatorStratified samplingMean squared errorSample size determinationCoefficient of variationPopulation meanCorrelation coefficientSampling (signal processing)PopulationEfficient estimatorMinimum-variance unbiased estimatorComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces ratio estimators of the population mean using the coefficient of variation of study variable and auxiliary variables together with the coefficient of correlation between the study and auxiliary variables under simple random sampling and stratified random sampling. These ratio estimators are almost unbiased. The mean square errors of the estimators and their estimators are given. Sample size estimation in both sampling designs are presented. An optimal sample size allocation in stratified random sampling is also suggested. Based on theoretical study, it can be shown that these ratio estimators have smaller MSE than the unbiased estimators. Moreover, the empirical study indicates that these ratio estimators have smallest MSE compared to the existing ones.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.125
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.125
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207