MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281981557 · doi:10.3390/stats5020031

A Comparison of Existing Bootstrap Algorithms for Multi-Stage Sampling Designs

2022· article· en· W4281981557 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueStats · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsComputer scienceSampling (signal processing)Context (archaeology)Variance (accounting)Sampling designStability (learning theory)AlgorithmStage (stratigraphy)Task (project management)StatisticsData miningMachine learningMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-stage sampling designs are often used in household surveys because a sampling frame of elements may not be available or for cost considerations when data collection involves face-to-face interviews. In this context, variance estimation is a complex task as it relies on the availability of second-order inclusion probabilities at each stage. To cope with this issue, several bootstrap algorithms have been proposed in the literature in the context of a two-stage sampling design. In this paper, we describe some of these algorithms and compare them empirically in terms of bias, stability, and coverage probability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.924
GPT teacher head0.651
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it