MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033397941 · doi:10.15388/lmr.2008.18112

Estimation of employed persons in the case of sample rotation

2008· article· en· W3033397941 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Viktoras Chadyšas, Danutė Krapavickaitė

Bibliographic record

VenueLietuvos matematikos rinkinys · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAgricultural economics and policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorSimple random sampleStatisticsRotation (mathematics)Sample (material)MathematicsSampling designVariance (accounting)Sampling (signal processing)Bias of an estimatorMinimum-variance unbiased estimatorEstimationQuarter (Canadian coin)EconometricsComputer scienceEngineeringGeographyPopulationEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the paper – to investigate effectiveness of the ratio estimator in the labour force survey in the case of the simple random sampling with rotation. For each quarter of the year one fourth of the previousquarter sample is changed with the new one, and three fourth’s are remaining the same. After simplification of the sampling design the estimator using auxiliary information and its approximate variance is constructed. The accuracy of the estimator obtained is studied by modelling with the real data.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLietuvos matematikos rinkinysSame topicAgricultural economics and policiesFrench-language works237,207