Bayesian Predictive Inference Under Nine Methods for Incorporating Survey Weights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sample surveys play a significant role in obtaining reliable estimators of finite population quantities, and survey weights are used to deal with selection bias and non-response bias. The main idea of this research is to compare the performance of nine methods with differently constructed survey weights, and we can use these methods for non-probability sampling after weights are estimated (e.g. quasi-randomization). The original survey weights are calibrated to the population size. In particular, the base model does not include survey weights or design weights. We use original survey weights, adjusted survey weights, trimmed survey weights, and adjusted trimmed survey weights into pseudo-likelihood function to build unnormalized or normalized posterior distributions. In this research, we focus on binary data, which occur in many different situations. A simulation study is performed and we analyze the simulated data using average posterior mean, average posterior standard deviation, average relative bias, average posterior root mean squared error, and the coverage rate of 95% credible intervals. We also performed an application on body mass index to further understand these nine methods. The results show that methods with trimmed weights are preferred than methods with untrimmed weights, and methods with adjusted weights have higher variability than methods with unadjusted weights.
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 | 0.051 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".