Use of Auxiliary Variables and Asymptotically Optimum Estimators in Double Sampling
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explore the need for exploiting auxiliary variables in sample survey and utilizing asymptotically optimum estimator in double sampling to increase the efficiency of estimators. The study proposed two types of estimators with two auxiliary variables for two phase sampling when there is no information about auxiliary variables at population level. The expressions for the Mean Squared Error (MSE) of the proposed estimators were derived to the first order of approximation. An empirical comparative approach of the minimum variances and percent relative efficiency were adopted to study the efficiency of the proposed and existing estimators. It was established that, the proposed estimators performed more efficiently than the mean per unit estimator and other previous estimators that don’t use auxiliary variable and that are not asymptotically optimum. Also, it was established that estimators that are asymptotically optimum that utilized single auxiliary variable are more efficient than those that are not asymptotically optimum with two auxiliary variables.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it