MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803345377 · doi:10.1111/sjos.12336

Small area estimation of complex parameters under unit‐level models with skew‐normal errors

2018· article· en· W2803345377 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

VenueScandinavian Journal of Statistics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSpatial and Panel Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Calcutta
KeywordsMathematicsEstimatorNormalityStatisticsSkewMean squared errorSmall area estimationParametric statisticsNormal distributionApplied mathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The widely used Elbers–Lanjouw–Lanjouw (ELL) method of estimating complex parameters for areas with small sample sizes uses a fitted nested‐error model based on survey data to create simulated censuses of the variable of interest. The complex parameters obtained from each simulated censuses are then averaged to get the estimate. An empirical best (EB) method, under the nested‐error model with normal errors, is significantly more efficient, in terms of mean square error (MSE), than the ELL method when the normality assumption holds. However, it can perform poorly in terms of MSE when the model errors are not normally distributed. We relax normality by assuming skew‐normal errors, derive EB estimators, and study their MSE relative to EB based on normality and ELL. We propose bootstrap methods for MSE estimation. We also study an improvement to ELL by conditioning on the area random effects and without parametric assumptions on the errors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.052 · 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