Variance estimation when donor imputation is used to fill in missing values
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
Abstract Donor imputation is frequently used in surveys. However, very few variance estimation methods that take into account donor imputation have been developed in the literature. This is particularly true for surveys with high sampling fractions using nearest donor imputation, often called nearest‐neighbour imputation. In this paper, the authors develop a variance estimator for donor imputation based on the assumption that the imputed estimator of a domain total is approximately unbiased under an imputation model; that is, a model for the variable requiring imputation. Their variance estimator is valid, irrespective of the magnitude of the sampling fractions and the complexity of the donor imputation method, provided that the imputation model mean and variance are accurately estimated. They evaluate its performance in a simulation study and show that nonparametric estimation of the model mean and variance via smoothing splines brings robustness with respect to imputation model misspecifications. They also apply their variance estimator to real survey data when nearest‐neighbour imputation has been used to fill in the missing values. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 37: 400–416; 2009 © 2009 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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