Weighting Large Datasets with Complex Sampling Designs: Choosing the Appropriate Variance Estimation Method
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
Using the Canadian Workplace and Employee Survey (WES), three variance estimation methods for weighting large datasets with complex sampling designs are compared: simple final weighting, standard bootstrapping and mean bootstrapping. Using a logit analysis, it is shown - depending on which weighting method is used - different predictor variables are significant. The potential lack of independence inherent in a multi-stage cluster sample design, as in the WES, results in a downward bias in the variance when conducting statistical inference (using the simple final weight), which in turn results in increased Type I errors. Bootstrap methods can account for the survey’s design and adjust the variance so that it is inference appropriate and corrected for downward bias. The WES provides mean, as opposed to standard, bootstrap weights with the data; thus, a further adjustment to account for the reduced variation inherent when information is grouped is required. Failure to use mean bootstrap weights appropriately leads to biased standard errors and inappropriate inference.
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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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