Combining data from two independent surveys: a model-assisted approach
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combining information from two or more independent surveys is a problem frequently encountered in survey sampling. We consider the case of two independent surveys, where a large sample from survey 1 collects only auxiliary information and a much smaller sample from survey 2 provides information on both the variables of interest and the auxiliary variables. We propose a model-assisted projection method of estimation based on a working model, but the reference distribution is design-based. We generate synthetic or proxy values of a variable of interest by first fitting the working model, relating the variable of interest to the auxiliary variables, to the data from survey 2 and then predicting the variable of interest associated with the auxiliary variables observed in survey 1. The projection estimator of a total is simply obtained from the survey 1 weights and associated synthetic values. We identify the conditions for the projection estimator to be asymptotically unbiased. Domain estimation using the projection method is also considered. Replication variance estimators are obtained by augmenting the synthetic data file for survey 1 with additional synthetic columns associated with the columns of replicate weights. Results from a simulation study 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it