MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Jackknife Variance Estimation under Imputation for Estimators Using Poststratification Information

2000· article· en· W2061337431 on OpenAlexaff
Wesley Yung, J. N. K. Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Statistical Association · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJackknife resamplingEstimatorStatisticsImputation (statistics)MathematicsWeightingEconometricsMissing data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poststratified estimators are commonly used in sample surveys to improve the efficiency of estimators and to ensure calibration to known poststrata counts. Similarly, generalized regression estimators are used to handle two or more poststratifiers with known marginal counts. In addition, weighting adjustment within weighting classes is used to handle unit nonresponse, and imputation within imputation classes is used to handle item nonresponse. For the full response case, asymptotic consistency of the jackknife variance estimator under stratified multistage sampling is established using mild regularity conditions on “residuals” similar to those of Scott and Wu for ratio and regression estimation under simple random sampling. A jackknife linearization variance estimator, obtained by linearizing the jackknife variance estimator, is also given. For unit nonresponse, the general case of poststrata cutting across weighting classes is considered, and a jackknife variance estimator and the corresponding jackknife linearization variance estimator are obtained. For item nonresponse, weighted mean imputation and weighted hot deck stochastic imputation within imputation classes are studied. Jackknife variance estimators, based on “adjusted” imputed values, are proposed, and the corresponding jackknife linearization variance estimators are obtained. Asymptotic consistency of the jackknife variance estimator is established for both the unit and item nonresponse cases under mild conditions on “residuals,” assuming uniform response within classes. Simulation results for the poststratified estimator under weighted mean imputation and weighted hot deck stochastic imputation are presented.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.184
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.184
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations28
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Statistical AssociationSame topicSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207