Estimation of a Population Total Under Nonresponse Using Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article, we propose methods to minimize bias due to unit nonresponse. We consider a two-phase sampling design where the second phase is a probability subsample of nonrespondents from the first phase. In this context, we propose three weighting procedures to estimate the total when not all units in the subsample respond. The weighting is based on the response homogeneity group (RHG) model. Given the RHG model, theoretical results on bias and variance estimation are obtained for all estimators. In a simulation study, we evaluate the empirical properties of the three estimators as well as of estimators based on two commonly used procedures to handle unit nonresponse in single-phase sampling design. These two procedures include: (i) nonresponse calibration weighting, also known as the one-step approach, and (ii) nonresponse probability weighting followed by calibration, also known as the two-step approach. Our results indicate that when there is significant deviation from the assumed RHG model, the nonresponse follow-up estimators perform better in terms of bias and coverage.
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 | 0.036 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".