Combining Non-Probability and Probability Survey Samples Through Mass Imputation
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
Abstract Analysis of non-probability survey samples requires auxiliary information at the population level. Such information may also be obtained from an existing probability survey sample from the same finite population. Mass imputation has been used in practice for combining non-probability and probability survey samples and making inferences on the parameters of interest using the information collected only in the non-probability sample for the study variables. Under the assumption that the conditional mean function from the non-probability sample can be transported to the probability sample, we establish the consistency of the mass imputation estimator and derive its asymptotic variance formula. Variance estimators are developed using either linearization or bootstrap. Finite sample performances of the mass imputation estimator are investigated through simulation studies. We also address important practical issues of the method through the analysis of a real-world non-probability survey sample collected by the Pew Research Centre.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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