MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092227601 · doi:10.1002/cjs.10133

Fully efficient estimation of coefficients of correlation in the presence of imputed survey data

2011· article· en· W2092227601 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsImputation (statistics)EstimatorStatisticsCopula (linguistics)Bivariate analysisComputer scienceMissing dataCorrelationEconometricsRegressionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Marginal imputation, that consists of imputing items separately, generally leads to biased estimators of bivariate parameters such as finite population coefficients of correlation. To overcome this problem, two main approaches have been considered in the literature: the first consists of using customary imputation methods such as random hot‐deck imputation and adjusting for the bias at the estimation stage. This approach was studied in Skinner & Rao 2002 . In this paper, we extend the results of Skinner & Rao 2002 to the case of arbitrary sampling designs and three variants of random hot‐deck imputation. The second approach consists of using an imputation method, which preserves the relationship between variables. Shao & Wang 2002 proposed a joint random regression imputation procedure that succeeds in preserving the relationships between two study variables. One drawback of the Shao–Wang procedure is that it suffers from an additional variability (called the imputation variance) due to the random selection of residuals, resulting in potentially inefficient estimators. Following Chauvet, Deville, & Haziza 2011 , we propose a fully efficient version of the Shao–Wang procedure that preserves the relationship between two study variables, while virtually eliminating the imputation variance. Results of a simulation study support our findings. An application using data from the Workplace and Employees Survey is also presented. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 40: 124–149; 2012 © 2011 Statistical Society of Canada

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.159 · 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