MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127648054 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11206

Bootstrap methods for imputed data from regression, ratio and hot‐deck imputation

2014· article· en· W2127648054 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.
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 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsImputation (statistics)EstimatorEconometricsMathematicsSimple random sampleStratified samplingRegressionSurvey samplingSampling (signal processing)Sample size determinationContext (archaeology)Missing dataComputer scienceGeographyDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Item non‐response in sample surveys is usually addressed by imputation. A bootstrap method that treats the imputed values as if they were observed generally leads to variance estimates that are too small. Shao & Sitter (1996) introduced a bootstrap method in this context, which leads to consistent variance estimators when the sampling fraction is small. In the context of stratified simple random sampling, we introduce the independent bootstrap, which is valid even when the sampling fraction is large. It consists of modifying a bootstrap method for sample surveys, of independently generating the response status of each unit, and of imputing the non‐respondents in the bootstrap sample. We pay special attention to the bootstrap survey weights approach of Rao, Wu, & Yue (1992). The Canadian Journal of Statistics 42: 142–167; 2014 © 2014 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)0.014
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 score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.285 · 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