MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adjusted Jackknife for Imputation under Unequal Probability Sampling Without Replacement

2006· article· en· W2164422502 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Southampton
KeywordsJackknife resamplingImputation (statistics)StatisticsEstimatorVariance (accounting)MathematicsSimple random sampleMissing dataEconometricsProbability samplingSampling (signal processing)Sample size determinationComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Imputation is commonly used to compensate for item non-response in sample surveys. If we treat the imputed values as if they are true values, and then compute the variance estimates by using standard methods, such as the jackknife, we can seriously underestimate the true variances. We propose a modified jackknife variance estimator which is defined for any without-replacement unequal probability sampling design in the presence of imputation and non-negligible sampling fraction. Mean, ratio and random-imputation methods will be considered. The practical advantage of the method proposed is its breadth of applicability.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.187 · 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