Stratification of Skewed Populations: A Comparison of Optimisation‐based versus Approximate Methods
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
Summary Survey statisticians use either approximate or optimisation‐based methods to stratify finite populations. Examples of the former are the cumrootf (Dalenius & Hodges, ) and geometric (Gunning & Horgan, ) methods, while examples of the latter are Sethi ( ) and Kozak ( ) algorithms. The approximate procedures result in inflexible stratum boundaries; this lack of flexibility results in non‐optimal boundaries. On the other hand, optimisation‐based methods provide stratum boundaries that can simultaneously account for (i) a chosen allocation scheme, (ii) overall sample size or required reliability of the estimator of a studied parameter and (iii) presence or absence of a take‐all stratum. Given these additional conditions, optimisation‐based methods will result in optimal boundaries. The only disadvantage of these methods is their complexity. However, in the second decade of 21st century, this complexity does not actually pose a problem. We illustrate how these two groups of methods differ by comparing their efficiency for two artificial populations and a real population. Our final point is that statistical offices should prefer optimisation‐based over approximate stratification methods; such a decision will help them either save much public money or, if funds are already allocated to a survey, result in more precise estimates of national statistics.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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