Estimation of Domain Means from Business Surveys in the Presence of Stratum Jumpers and Nonresponse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Misclassified frame records (also called stratum jumpers) and low response rates are characteristic for business surveys. In the context of estimation of the domain parameters, jumpers may contribute to extreme variation in sample weights and skewed sampling distributions of the estimators, especially for domains with a small number of observations. There is limited literature about the extent to which these problems may affect the performance of the ratio estimators with nonresponse-adjusted weights. To address this gap, we designed a simulation study to explore the properties of the Horvitz-Thompson type ratio estimators, with and without smoothing of the weights, under different scenarios. The ratio estimator with propensity-adjusted weights showed satisfactory performance in all scenarios with a high response rate. For scenarios with a low response rate, the performance of this estimator improved with an increase in the proportion of jumpers in the domain. The smoothed estimators that we studied performed well in scenarios with non-informative weights, but can become markedly biased when the weights are informative, irrespective of response rate. We also studied the performance of the ’doubled half’ bootstrap method for variance estimation. We illustrated an application of the methods in a real business survey.
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 | 0.047 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".