Integration of Nonprobability and Probability Samples via Survey Weights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probability sample encounters the problems of increasing cost and nonresponse. The cost has rapidly been increasing in executing a large probability sample survey, and, for some surveys, response rate can be below the 10 percent level. Therefore, statisticians seek some alternative methods. One of them is to use a large nonprobability sample (S_1 ) supplemented by a small probability sample (S_2 ). Both samples are taken from the same population and they include common covariates, and a third sample (S_3 ) is created by combining these two samples; S_1 can be biased and S_2 may have large sample variance. These two problems are reduced by survey weights and combining the two samples. Although S_2 is a small sample, it provides good properties of unbiasedness in estimation and of survey weights. With these known weights, we obtain adjusted sample weights (ASW), and create a sample model from a finite population model. We fit the sample model to obtain its parameters and generate values from the population model. Similarly, we repeat these processes for other two samples, S_1 and S_3 and for different statistical methods. We show reduced biases of the finite population means and reduced variances.as the combined sample size becomes large. We analyze sample data to show the reduction of these two errors.
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 | 0.024 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".