Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Two‐phase sampling is often used for estimating a population total or mean when the cost per unit of collecting auxiliary variables,x, is much smaller than the cost per unit of measuring a characteristic of interest,y. In the first phase, a large samples1is drawn according to a specific sampling designp(s1), and auxiliary dataxare observed for the unitsi∈s1. Given the first‐phase samples1, a second‐phase samples2is selected froms1according to a specified sampling design{p(s2∣s1) }, and (y,x) is observed for the unitsi∈s2. In some cases, the population totals of some components ofxmay also be known. Two‐phase sampling is used for stratification at the second phase or both phases and for regression estimation. Horvitz–Thompson‐type variance estimators are used for variance estimation. However, the Horvitz–Thompson ( Horvitz & Thompson,J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.1952 ) variance estimator in uni‐phase sampling is known to be highly unstable and may take negative values when the units are selected with unequal probabilities. On the other hand, the Sen–Yates–Grundy variance estimator is relatively stable and non‐negative for several unequal probability sampling designs with fixed sample sizes. In this paper, we extend the Sen–Yates–Grundy ( Sen ,J. Ind. Soc. Agric. Statist.1953; Yates & Grundy ,J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B1953) variance estimator to two‐phase sampling, assuming fixed first‐phase sample size and fixed second‐phase sample size given the first‐phase sample. We apply the new variance estimators to two‐phase sampling designs with stratification at the second phase or both phases. We also develop Sen–Yates–Grundy‐type variance estimators of the two‐phase regression estimators that make use of the first‐phase auxiliary data and known population totals of some of the auxiliary variables.
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 | 0.034 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".