A Comparison of Small Area and Calibration Estimators Via Simulation
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
Abstract Domain estimates are typically obtained using calibration estimators that are direct or modified direct. They are direct if they strictly use data within the domain of interest. They are modified direct if they use both data within and outside the domain of interest. An alternative way of producing these estimates is through small area procedures. In this article, we compare the performance of these two approaches via a simulation. The population is generated using a hierarchical model that includes both area effects and unit level random errors. The population is made up of mutually exclusive domains of different sizes, ranging from a small number of units to a large number of units. We select many independent simple random samples of fixed size from the population and compute various estimates for each sample using the available auxiliary information. The estimates computed for the simulation included the Horvitz-Thompson estimator, the synthetic estimator (indirect estimate), calibration estimators, and unit level based estimators (small area estimate). The performance of these estimators is summarized based on their design-based properties.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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