MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W303565404 · doi:10.1002/cjs.5550330201

Inference for domains under imputation for missing survey data

2005· article· en· W303565404 on OpenAlexaffvenue
David Haziza, J. N. K. Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImputation (statistics)EstimatorMissing dataInferenceStatisticsEconometricsEfficiencyBest linear unbiased predictionMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors study the estimation of domain totals and means under survey-weighted regression imputation for missing items. They use two different approaches to inference: (i) design-based with uniform response within classes; (ii) model-assisted with ignorable response and an imputation model. They show that the imputed domain estimators are biased under (i) but approximately unbiased under (ii). They obtain a bias-adjusted estimator that is approximately unbiased under (i) or (ii). They also derive linearization variance estimators. They report the results of a simulation study on the bias ratio and efficiency of alternative estimators, including a complete case estimator that requires the knowledge of response indicators.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.061
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 head0.559
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.061 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207