MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075601854 · doi:10.1002/cjs.5550350403

Nonresponse weighting adjustment using estimated response probability

2007· article· en· W2075601854 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsEstimatorWeightingInverse probability weightingNon-response biasMathematicsVariance (accounting)RespondentProbability samplingInverse probabilityEconometricsBayesian probabilityPosterior probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To reduce nonresponse bias in sample surveys, a method of nonresponse weighting adjustment is often used which consists of multiplying the sampling weight of the respondent by the inverse of the estimated response probability. The authors examine the asymptotic properties of this estimator. They prove that it is generally more efficient than an estimator which uses the true response probability, provided that the parameters which govern this probability are estimated by maximum likelihood. The authors discuss variance estimation methods that account for the effect of using the estimated response probability; they compare their performances in a small simulation study. They also discuss extensions to the regression estimator.

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)0.008
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.170 · 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