Neighbourhood Bootstrap for Respondent-Driven Sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respondent-Driven Sampling (RDS) is a form of link-tracing sampling, a sampling technique used for `hard-to-reach' populations that aims to leverage individuals' social relationships to reach potential participants. While the methodological focus has been restricted to the estimation of population proportions, there is a growing interest in the estimation of uncertainty for RDS as recent findings suggest that most variance estimators underestimate variability. Recently, Baraff et al. (2016) proposed the \textit{tree bootstrap} method based on resampling the RDS recruitment tree, and empirically showed that this method outperforms current bootstrap methods. However, some findings suggest that the tree bootstrap (severely) overestimates uncertainty. In this paper, we propose the \textit{neighbourhood} bootstrap method for quantifiying uncertainty in RDS. We prove the consistency of our method under some conditions and investigate its finite sample performance, through a simulation study, under realistic RDS sampling assumptions.
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 | 0.042 | 0.190 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".