Bayesian Predictive Inference Under Nine Methods for Incorporating Survey Weights
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it