Dealing with non-ignorable nonresponse in survey sampling: A latent modeling approach
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
Nonresponse is present in almost all surveys and can severely bias estimates. It is usually distinguished between unit and item nonresponse. By noting that for a particular survey variable, we just have observed and unobserved values, in this work we exploit the connection between unit and item nonresponse. In particular, we assume that the factors that drive unit response are the same as those that drive item response on selected variables of interest. Response probabilities are then estimated using a latent covariate that measures the will to respond to the survey and that can explain a part of the unknown behavior of a unit to participate in the survey. This latent covariate is estimated using latent trait models. This approach is particularly relevant for sensitive items and, therefore, can handle non-ignorable nonresponse. Auxiliary information known for both respondents and nonrespondents can be included either in the latent variable model or in the response probability estimation process. The approach can also be used when auxiliary information is not available, and we focus here on this case. We propose an estimator using a reweighting system based on the previous latent covariate when no other observed auxiliary information is available. Results on its performance are encouraging from simulation studies on both real and simulated data.
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 | 0.500 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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