General purpose multiply robust data integration procedures for handling nonprobability samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years, there has been an increased interest in combining probability and nonprobability samples. Nonprobability sample are cheaper and quicker to conduct but the resulting estimators are vulnerable to bias as the participation probabilities are unknown. To adjust for the potential bias, estimation procedures based on parametric or nonparametric models have been discussed in the literature. However, the validity of the resulting estimators relies heavily on the validity of the underlying models. Also, nonparametric approaches may suffer from the curse of dimensionality and poor efficiency. We propose a data integration approach by combining multiple outcome regression models and propensity score models. The proposed approach can be used for estimating general parameters including totals, means, distribution functions, and percentiles. The resulting estimators are multiply robust in the sense that they remain consistent if all but one model are misspecified. The asymptotic properties of point and variance estimators are established. The results from a simulation study show the benefits of the proposed method in terms of bias and efficiency. Finally, we apply the proposed method using data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and data from the National Health Insurance Sharing Services.
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 | 0.024 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".