Sample survey theory and methods: Past, present, and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We discuss developments in sample survey theory and methods covering the past 100 years. Neyman’s 1934 landmark paper laid the theoretical foundations for the probability sampling approach to inference from survey samples. Classical sampling books by Cochran, Deming, Hansen, Hurwitz and Madow, Sukhatme, and Yates, which appeared in the early 1950s, expanded and elaborated the theory of probability sampling, emphasizing unbiasedness, model free features, and designs that minimize variance for a fixed cost. During the period 1960-1970, theoretical foundations of inference from survey data received attention, with the model-dependent approach generating considerable discussion. Introduction of general purpose statistical software led to the use of such software with survey data, which led to the design of methods specifically for complex survey data. At the same time, weighting methods, such as regression estimation and calibration, became practical and design consistency replaced unbiasedness as the requirement for standard estimators. A bit later, computer-intensive resampling methods also became practical for large scale survey samples. Improved computer power led to more sophisticated imputation for missing data, use of more auxiliary data, some treatment of measurement errors in estimation, and more complex estimation procedures. A notable use of models was in the expanded use of small area estimation. Future directions in research and methods will be influenced by budgets, response rates, timeliness, improved data collection devices, and availability of auxiliary data, some of which will come from “Big Data”. Survey taking will be impacted by changing cultural behavior and by a changing physical-technical environment.
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 | 0.077 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".