MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964233174 · doi:10.1111/insr.12293

Small Area Quantile Estimation

2018· article· en· W2964233174 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

VenueInternational Statistical Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersProject 211Program of Shanghai Subject Chief ScientistYunnan UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSmall area estimationQuantilePoolingStatisticsEstimatorComputer scienceSample size determinationResamplingSample (material)EconometricsSampling (signal processing)Contrast (vision)PopulationMean squared errorMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Sample surveys are widely used to obtain information about totals, means, medians and other parameters of finite populations. In many applications, similar information is desired for subpopulations such as individuals in specific geographic areas and socio‐demographic groups. When the surveys are conducted at national or similarly high levels, a probability sampling can result in just a few sampling units from many unplanned subpopulations at the design stage. Cost considerations may also lead to low sample sizes from individual small areas. Estimating the parameters of these subpopulations with satisfactory precision and evaluating their accuracy are serious challenges for statisticians. To overcome the difficulties, statisticians resort to pooling information across the small areas via suitable model assumptions, administrative archives and census data. In this paper, we develop an array of small area quantile estimators. The novelty is the introduction of a semiparametric density ratio model for the error distribution in the unit‐level nested error regression model. In contrast, the existing methods are usually most effective when the response values are jointly normal. We also propose a resampling procedure for estimating the mean square errors of these estimators. Simulation results indicate that the new methods have superior performance when the population distributions are skewed and remain competitive otherwise.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
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)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.185
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.277 · 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