MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168352277 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11622

Estimation of design‐based mean squared error of a small area mean model‐based estimator under a nested error linear regression model

2021· article· en· W3168352277 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marius Stefan, M. Hidiroglou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsAluminerie Alouette (Canada)Statistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMean squared errorEstimatorMathematicsStatisticsBias of an estimatorPopulationSmall area estimationEfficient estimatorMinimum-variance unbiased estimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, we propose a conditional model estimator (cmmse) for the design‐based mean squared error (dMSE) of a small area mean estimator under the basic unit level model. The mean squared error dMSE refers to the variability of a small area estimator over all possible sample selections. It is different from the model mean squared error (mMSE), traditionally used to measure the efficiency in small area estimation problems. For known model parameters, Rao, Rubin‐Bleuer & Estevao [Rao et al., Survey Methodology 2018; 44, 151–166] showed that dMSE depends on two quadratic finite population parameters. A design estimator of dMSE, denoted as dmse, is obtained by substituting the quadratic parameters with their corresponding design unbiased estimators. Rao, Rubin‐Bleuer & Estevao [Rao et al., Survey Methodology 2018; 44, 151–166] proposed a composite MSE estimator (cmse) based on both the design and the model. This estimator is defined as a weighted average between the design‐based dmse and a model‐based estimator (mmse). Given known variance components, we obtain a new formula for dMSE that accounts for the estimation of the fixed model coefficients. Our conditional model MSE estimator cmmse is obtained by replacing the quadratic finite population parameters by their best predictions under the model, in the new formula of dMSE. Properties of the proposed estimator are studied in terms of design bias, relative root mean squared error, coverage rate and a score function of the confidence intervals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207