MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090079919 · doi:10.1081/sta-100002142

ESTIMATION PROCEDURES FOR CATEGORICAL SURVEY DATA WITH NONIGNORABLE NONRESPONSE

2001· article· en· W2090079919 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

VenueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and Methods · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorical variableCovariateWeightingImputation (statistics)EconometricsStatisticsComputer scienceNon-response biasMissing dataLogistic regressionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider surveys with one or more callbacks and use a series of logistic regressions to model the probabilities of nonresponse at first contact and subsequent callbacks. These probabilities are allowed to depend on covariates as well as the categorical variable of interest and so the nonresponse mechanism is nonignorable. Explicit formulae for the score functions and information matrices are given for some important special cases to facilitate implementation of the method of scoring for obtaining maximum likelihood estimates of the model parameters. For estimating finite population quantities, we suggest the imputation and prediction approaches as alternatives to weighting adjustment. Simulation results suggest that the proposed methods work well in reducing the bias due to nonresponse. In our study, the imputation and prediction approaches perform better than weighting adjustment and they continue to perform quite well in simulations involving misspecified response models. Copyright © 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.028
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 head0.278
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.254 · 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