MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150394428

A Note on Sampling and Estimation in the Presence of Cut-Off Sampling

2008· preprint· en· W2150394428 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

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2008
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorSampling (signal processing)Selection (genetic algorithm)Sampling biasStatisticsSample (material)Selection biasEconometricsSet (abstract data type)Sampling designPopulationEstimationComputer scienceSample size determinationMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cut-off sampling consists of deliberately excluding a set of units from possible samples selection, forexample if the contribution of the excluded units to the total is small and if the inclusion of these unitsin the sample selection involves high costs. If the characteristics of the excluded units differ from thatof the population under study, the use of naïve estimators may result in strongly biased estimations. Inthis paper, we discuss the use of auxiliary information to reduce the non-response bias by means ofcalibration or balanced sampling techniques. It is demonstrated that the use of both the availableauxiliary information related to the variable of interest and of the available auxiliary informationrelated to the probability of response enables to strongly reduce the estimation bias. A short numericalstudy supports our findings.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.286 · 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