A quality framework for statistical algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As national statistical offices (NSOs) modernize, interest in integrating machine learning (ML) into official statisticians’ toolbox is growing. Two challenges to such an integration are the potential loss of transparency from using “black-boxes” and the need to develop a quality framework. In 2019, the High-Level Group for the Modernisation of Official Statistics (HLG-MOS) launched a project on machine learning with one of the objectives being to address these two challenges. One of the outputs of the HLG-MOS project is a Quality Framework for Statistical Algorithms (QF4SA). While many quality frameworks exist, they have been conceived with traditional methods in mind, and they tend to target statistical outputs. Currently, machine learning methods are being looked at for use in processes producing intermediate outputs, which lead to a final statistical output. Therefore, the QF4SA does not replace existing quality frameworks; it complements them. As the QF4SA targets intermediate outputs and not necessarily the final statistical output, it should be used in conjunction with existing quality frameworks to ensure that high-quality outputs are produced. This paper presents the QF4SA, as well as some recommendations for NSOs considering the use of machine learning in the production of official statistics.
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 | 0.115 | 0.225 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".