A two-step approach to simultaneously correct for selection and misclassification bias in nonprobability samples from hard-to-reach populations
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
Researchers studying hard-to-reach or minority populations are increasingly implementing nonprobability sampling strategies that are often prone to selection bias. To address this problem, existing statistical methods suggest integrating data from external probability sample, often collected by government agencies, with the nonprobability sample from the hard-to-reach population. These methods assume that all information collected in the probability sample is recorded without errors. This may not be the case if participants are unwilling to report their minority status, such as sexual orientation, truthfully in large-scale population-based surveys, leading to misclassification bias. In this paper, we propose a novel two-step approach aimed at addressing misclassification bias in the probability sample to improve the performance of the data integration methods aimed at addressing selection bias in the nonprobability sample. By applying the proposed method to simulated data, we demonstrate a significant reduction in bias and validate the proposed bootstrap variance estimator of the estimated mean (prevalence) under low, moderate, and high misclassification rates. This method is particularly beneficial when the misclassification rate is high. Finally, we illustrate the application of the two-step approach to estimate the prevalence of measures of social connectedness among sexual minority men using a real-world nonprobability sample.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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