Estimating prediction error for complex samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a growing interest in using non‐representative samples to train prediction models for numerous outcomes it is necessary to account for the sampling design that gives rise to the data in order to assess the generalized predictive utility of a proposed prediction rule. After learning a prediction rule based on a non‐uniform sample, it is of interest to estimate the rule's error rate when applied to unobserved members of the population. Efron (1986) proposed a general class of covariance penalty inflated prediction error estimators that assume the available training data are representative of the target population for which the prediction rule is to be applied. We extend Efron's estimator to the complex sample context by incorporating Horvitz–Thompson sampling weights and show that it is consistent for the true generalization error rate when applied to the underlying superpopulation. The resulting Horvitz–Thompson–Efron estimator is equivalent to dAIC, a recent extension of Akaike's information criteria to survey sampling data, but is more widely applicable. The proposed methodology is assessed with simulations and is applied to models predicting renal function obtained from the large‐scale National Health and Nutrition Examination Study survey. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 48: 204–221; 2020 © 2019 Statistical Society of Canada
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".