Targeting Key Survey Variables at the Unit Nonresponse Treatment Stage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the presence of nonresponse, unadjusted estimators are vulnerable to nonresponse bias when the characteristics of the respondents differ from those of the nonrespondents. To reduce the bias, it is common practice to postulate a nonresponse model linking the response indicators and a set of fully observed variables. Estimated response probabilities are obtained by fitting the selected model, which are then used to adjust the base weights. The resulting estimator, referred to as the propensity score-adjusted estimator, is consistent provided the nonresponse model is correctly specified. In this article, we propose a weighting procedure that may improve the efficiency of propensity score estimators for survey variables identified as key variables by making a more extensive use of the auxiliary information available at the nonresponse treatment stage. Results from a simulation study suggest that the proposed procedure performs well in terms of efficiency when the data are missing at random and also achieves an efficient bias reduction when the data are not missing at random. We further apply our proposed methods to 2017–2018 National Health Nutrition and Examination Survey.
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 | 0.035 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".