Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Applied econometric analysis is often performed using data collected from large-scale surveys. These surveys use complex sampling plans in order to reduce costs and increase the estimation efficiency for subgroups of the population. These sampling plans result in unequal inclusion probabilities across units in the population. The purpose of this paper is to derive the asymptotic properties of a design-based nonparametric regression estimator under a combined inference framework. The nonparametric regression estimator considered is the local constant estimator. This work contributes to the literature in two ways. First, it derives the asymptotic properties for the multivariate mixed-data case, including the asymptotic normality of the estimator. Second, I use least squares cross-validation for selecting the bandwidths for both continuous and discrete variables. I run Monte Carlo simulations designed to assess the finite-sample performance of the design-based local constant estimator versus the traditional local constant estimator for three sampling methods, namely, simple random sampling, exogenous stratification and endogenous stratification. Simulation results show that the estimator is consistent and that efficiency gains can be achieved by weighting observations by the inverse of their inclusion probabilities if the sampling is endogenous.
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 | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".