MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288050399 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11717

Statistical inference from finite population samples: A critical review of frequentist and Bayesian approaches

2022· review· en· W4288050399 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrequentist inferenceStatisticsBayesian probabilityPopulationPoint estimationStatistical inferenceInferenceSampling (signal processing)Fiducial inferenceContext (archaeology)EconometricsPoisson samplingComputer sciencePopulation varianceMathematicsBayesian statisticsBayesian inferenceArtificial intelligenceMarkov chain Monte CarloSlice samplingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In survey sampling, data are obtained on a subset of a finite population by probability or nonprobability sampling procedures. These data are used to compute point estimates of finite population parameters along with their associated variance estimates and confidence intervals. Methods to conduct inferences and evaluate the properties of sampling and estimation procedures have been the subject of discussion and debate in the second half of the 20th century. In this article, we propose a critical review of three inferential approaches in a finite population context: the design‐based approach, the frequentist model‐based approach, and the Bayesian approach.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.439
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.021 · 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