MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141390646 · doi:10.2307/3315852

Small area estimation with auxiliary survey data

2003· article· en· W2141390646 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmall area estimationEstimatorStatisticsCovariateSample size determinationSurvey samplingMultivariate statisticsSurvey data collectionEstimationSample (material)Computer scienceEconometricsMean squared errorData miningMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Large governmental surveys typically provide accurate national statistics. To decrease the mean squared error of estimates for small areas, i.e., domains in which the sample size is small, auxiliary variables from administrative records are often used as covariates in a mixed linear model. It is generally assumed that the auxiliary information is available for every small area. In many cases, though, such information is available for only some of the small areas, either from another survey or from a previous administration of the same survey. The authors propose and study small area estimators that use multivariate models to combine information from several surveys. They discuss computational algorithms, and a simulation study indicates that if quantities in the different surveys are sufficiently correlated, substantial gains in efficiency can be achieved.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.453
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.105 · 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