Sparse and efficient replication variance estimation for complex surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is routine practice for survey organizations to provide replication weights as part of survey data files. These replication weights are meant to produce valid and efficient variance estimates for a variety of estimators in a simple and systematic manner. Most existing methods for constructing replication weights, however, are only valid for specific sampling designs and typically require a very large number of replicates. In this paper we first show how to produce replication weights based on the method outlined in Fay (1984) such that the resulting replication variance estimator is algebraically equivalent to the fully efficient linearization variance estimator for any given sampling design. We then propose a novel weight-calibration method to simultaneously achieve efficiency and sparsity in the sense that a small number of sets of replication weights can produce valid and efficient replication variance estimators for key population parameters. Our proposed method can be used in conjunction with existing resampling techniques for large-scale complex surveys. Validity of the proposed methods and extensions to some balanced sampling designs are also discussed. Simulation results showed that our proposed variance estimators perform very well in tracking coverage probabilities of confidence intervals. Our proposed strategies will likely have impact on how public-use survey data files are produced and how these data sets are analyzed.
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 | 0.072 | 0.311 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".