Bayesian Analysis of Sparse Counts Obtained From the Unrelated Question Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In sample surveys with sensitive items, sampled units may not respond or they respond untruthfully. Usually a negative answer is given when it is actually positive, thereby leading to an estimate of the population proportion of positives (sensitive proportion) that is too small. In our study, we have binary data obtained from the unrelated-question design, and both the sensitive proportion and the nonsensitive proportion are of interest. A respondent answers the sensitive item with a known probability, and to avoid non-identifiable parameters, at least two (not necessarily exactly two) different random mechanisms are used, but only one for each cluster of respondents. The key point here is that the counts are sparse (very small sample sizes), and we show how to overcome some of the problems associated with the unrelated question design. A standard approach to this problem is to use the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm. However, because we consider only small sample sizes (sparse counts), the EM algorithm may not converge and asymptotic theory, which can permit normality assumptions for inference, is not appropriate; so we develop a Bayesian method. To compare the EM algorithm and the Bayesian method, we have presented an example with sparse data on college cheating and a simulation study to illustrate the properties of our procedure. Finally, we discuss two extensions to accommodate finite population sampling and optional responses.
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 | 0.063 | 0.247 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".