Optimizing Count Responses in Surveys: A Machine-learning Approach
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
Count responses with grouping and right censoring have long been used in surveys to study a variety of behaviors, status, and attitudes. Yet grouping or right-censoring decisions of count responses still rely on arbitrary choices made by researchers. We develop a new method for evaluating grouping and right-censoring decisions of count responses from a (semisupervised) machine-learning perspective. This article uses Poisson multinomial mixture models to conceptualize the data-generating process of count responses with grouping and right censoring and demonstrates the link between grouping-scheme choices and asymptotic distributions of the Poisson mixture. To search for the optimal grouping scheme maximizing objective functions of the Fisher information (matrix), an innovative three-step M algorithm is then proposed to process infinitely many grouping schemes based on Bayesian A-, D-, and E-optimalities. A new R package is developed to implement this algorithm and evaluate grouping schemes of count responses. Results show that an optimal grouping scheme not only leads to a more efficient sampling design but also outperforms a nonoptimal one even if the latter has more groups.
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 | 0.126 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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