Fully efficient estimation of coefficients of correlation in the presence of imputed survey data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".