MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742915952 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v6n5p101

Improving Estimation Accuracy in Nonrandomized Response Questioning Methods by Multiple Answers

2017· article· en· W2742915952 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized responseRespondentEstimationComputer scienceSample (material)StatisticsEconometricsMathematicsEstimatorEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When private or stigmatizing characteristics are included in sample surveys, direct questions result in low cooperation of the respondents. To increase cooperation, indirect questioning procedures have been established in the literature. Nonrandomized response methods are one group of such procedures and have attracted much attention in recent years. In this article, we consider four popular nonrandomized response schemes and present a possibility to improve the estimation precision of these schemes. The basic idea is to require multiple indirect answers from each respondent. We develop a Fisher scoring algorithm for the maximum likelihood estimation in the presented new schemes and show the better efficiency of the new schemes compared with the original designs.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.087
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.372 · 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