Bibliographic record
Abstract
For surveys with sensitive questions, randomized response sampling strategies are often used to increase the response rate and encourage participants to provide the truth of the question while participants' privacy and confidentiality are protected. The proportion of responding ‘yes’ to the sensitive question is the parameter of interest. Asymptotic confidence intervals for this proportion are calculated from the limiting distribution of the test statistic, and are traditionally used in practice for statistical inference. It is well known that these intervals do not guarantee the coverage probability. For this reason, we apply the exact approach, adjusting the critical value as in [Citation10], to construct the exact confidence interval of the proportion based on the likelihood ratio test and three Wilson-type tests. Two randomized response sampling strategies are studied: the Warner model and the unrelated model. The exact interval based on the likelihood ratio test has shorter average length than others when the probability of the sensitive question is low. Exact Wilson intervals have good performance in other cases. A real example from a survey study is utilized to illustrate the application of these exact intervals.
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 | 0.114 | 0.578 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".