Estimation of Poverty Measures for Small Areas Under a Two-fold Nested Error Linear Regression Model: Comparison of Two Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Demand for reliable statistics at a local area (small area) level has greatly increased in recent years. Traditional area-specific estimators based on probability samples are not adequate because of small sample size or even zero sample size in a local area. As a result, methods based on models linking the areas are widely used. World Bank focused on estimating poverty measures, in particular poverty incidence and poverty gap called FGT measures, using a simulated census method, called ELL, based on a one-fold nested error model for a suitable transformation of the welfare variable. Modified ELL methods leading to significant gain in efficiency over ELL also have been proposed under the one-fold model. An advantage of ELL and modified ELL methods is that distributional assumptions on the random effects in the model are not needed. In this article, we extend ELL and modified ELL to two-fold nested error models to estimate poverty indicators for areas (say a state) and subareas (say counties within a state). Our simulation results indicate that the modified ELL estimators lead to large efficiency gains over ELL at the area level and subarea level. Further, modified ELL method retaining both area and subarea estimated effects in the model (called MELL2) performs significantly better in terms of mean squared error (MSE) for sampled subareas than the modified ELL retaining only estimated area effect in the model (called MELLI). AMS Subject Classification: 62D05, 62G09
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 | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".