MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2578167321 · doi:10.1177/0008068316634977

Revisiting Basu's Circus Example: Another Look at the Horvitz-Thompson Estimator

2016· article· en· W2578167321 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCalcutta Statistical Association Bulletin · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEstimatorMinimum-variance unbiased estimatorStein's unbiased risk estimateBias of an estimatorMathematicsJames–Stein estimatorConsistent estimatorEfficient estimatorStatisticsInvariant estimatorEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this article is a critical appraisal of the classical Horvitz-Thompson (HT) estimator used in survey sampling, and examine when and where it is effective. For illustration, we have brought in the hilarious circus example of Basu's [1] where the HT estimator led to a disastrous result. We have pointed out what went wrong with this example and, in the process, have also discussed what one needs for a successful application of the HT estimator. We also provide a model-based interpretation of the HT estimator, and again discuss the success or failure of the HT estimator from a model-based perspective.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it