Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".