Using ranked set sampling with binary outcomes in cluster randomized designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We study the use of ranked set sampling (RSS) with binary outcomes in cluster‐randomized designs (CRDs), where a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) is used to model the hierarchical data structure involved. Under the GLMM‐based framework, we propose three different approaches to estimate the treatment effect, including the nonparametric (NP), maximum likelihood (ML) and pseudo likelihood (PL) estimators. We investigate their asymptotic properties and examine their finite‐sample performance via simulation. Based on these three RSS estimators, we further develop procedures for testing the existence of the treatment effect. We examine the power and size of our proposed RSS tests and compare them with existing tests based on simple random sampling (SRS). All the proposed RSS estimation and test methods are illustrated with two data examples, one for rare events and the other for non‐extreme events. Throughout our investigations, we also consider the possible effect of imperfect ranking. Among the proposed methods, we provide recommendations on whether to use RSS rather than SRS with binary outcomes in CRDs and, if yes, when to use which RSS method. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 48: 342–365; 2020 © 2019 Statistical Society of Canada
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 | 0.144 | 0.303 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".