Estimation of ordinal population with multi-observer ranked set samples using ties information
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many surveys, we often deal with situations where measuring the study variable is expensive; however, there are easy-to-measure characteristics which can be used as ranking information to obtain more representative samples from the population. Ranked set sampling is successfully employed in these cases as an alternative to commonly used simple random sampling. When the data is ordinal categorical, it is common to apply the ordinal logistic regression approach to ranked set sampling data for the estimation of parameters. This technique first depends on the information of training data. Besides, one is not capable of using the ranking information in the estimation process. In this paper, we propose a ranked set sampling scheme in which ranking information from multiple sources can be combined and incorporated efficiently into both data collection and estimation. The ranked set sampling data is used for non-parametric and maximum likelihood estimation of ordinal categorical population. Through extensive simulation studies, the performance of estimators is evaluated. The methods are finally applied to analyze bone disorder data and obesity 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it