MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ranked Set Sampling: Cost and Optimal Set Size

2002· article· en· W2146876168 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsWycliffe College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRSSRanking (information retrieval)Simple random sampleSampling (signal processing)Set (abstract data type)StatisticsComputer scienceSample size determinationPopulationData miningMathematicsInformation retrievalMedicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

McIntyre (1952, Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 3, 385-390) introduced ranked set sampling (RSS) as a method for improving estimation of a population mean in settings where sampling and ranking of units from the population are inexpensive when compared with actual measurement of the units. Two of the major factors in the usefulness of RSS are the set size and the relative costs of the various operations of sampling, ranking, and measurement. In this article, we consider ranking error models and cost models that enable us to assess the effect of different cost structures on the optimal set size for RSS. For reasonable cost structures, we find that the optimal RSS set sizes are generally larger than had been anticipated previously. These results will provide a useful tool for determining whether RSS is likely to lead to an improvement over simple random sampling in a given setting and, if so, what RSS set size is best to use in this case.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.300
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.111 · 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