Confidence intervals for the mean of a population containing many zero values under unequal‐probability sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In many applications, a finite population contains a large proportion of zero values that make the population distribution severely skewed. An unequal‐probability sampling plan compounds the problem, and as a result the normal approximation to the distribution of various estimators has poor precision. The central‐limit‐theorem‐based confidence intervals for the population mean are hence unsatisfactory. Complex designs also make it hard to pin down useful likelihood functions, hence a direct likelihood approach is not an option. In this paper, we propose a pseudo‐likelihood approach. The proposed pseudo‐log‐likelihood function is an unbiased estimator of the log‐likelihood function when the entire population is sampled. Simulations have been carried out. When the inclusion probabilities are related to the unit values, the pseudo‐likelihood intervals are superior to existing methods in terms of the coverage probability, the balance of non‐coverage rates on the lower and upper sides, and the interval length. An application with a data set from the Canadian Labour Force Survey‐2000 also shows that the pseudo‐likelihood method performs more appropriately than other methods. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 38: 582–597; 2010 © 2010 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.
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 | 0.060 | 0.379 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".