The Design and Optimality of Survey Counts: A Unified Framework Via the Fisher Information Maximizer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grouped and right-censored (GRC) counts have been used in a wide range of attitudinal and behavioural surveys yet they cannot be readily analyzed or assessed by conventional statistical models. This study develops a unified regression framework for the design and optimality of GRC counts in surveys. To process infinitely many grouping schemes for the optimum design, we propose a new two-stage algorithm, the Fisher Information Maximizer (FIM), which utilizes estimates from generalized linear models to find a global optimal grouping scheme among all possible [Formula: see text]-group schemes. After we define, decompose, and calculate different types of regressor-specific design errors, our analyses from both simulation and empirical examples suggest that: 1) the optimum design of GRC counts is able to reduce the grouping error to zero, 2) the performance of modified Poisson estimators using GRC counts can be comparable to that of Poisson regression, and 3) the optimum design is usually able to achieve the same estimation efficiency with a smaller sample size.
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 | 0.027 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".