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 OpenAlexafffund
Sixia Chen, David Haziza, Zeinab Mashreghi

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.150
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.150
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatsSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207