MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416510269 · doi:10.1080/01621459.2025.2587316

Bias Control for M-Quantile-Based Small Area Estimators

2025· article· en· W4416510269 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Schirripa Spagnolo, Nicola Salvati, Gaia Bertarelli, David Haziza, Ray Chambers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Statistical Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicItaly: Economic History and Contemporary Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorOutlierLinearizationSmall area estimationSample (material)EstimationSample size determinationExtremum estimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Projective outlier-robust M-quantile-based small area estimators can be substantially biased when the sample data contain representative outliers. In this article we propose two new predictive type bias corrected versions of these estimators for continuous and discrete outcomes. Given both area level and individual level outliers in the population, these new estimators are more efficient than the robust-predictive and robust-projective estimators that have been proposed in the small area estimation literature. We also propose two estimators of the prediction mean-squared error of these estimators: one based on Taylor linearization and the other based on a new semi-parametric bootstrap method. We summarize the empirical evidence for these theoretical results in this article, while in the supplementary material we describe in more detail how the properties of these M-quantile-based small area estimators have been assessed in model-based and design-based simulations, as well as in a realistic application focusing on estimation of average income and unemployment rates for local labor market areas in Italy. Supplementary materials for this article are available online, including a standardized description of the materials available for reproducing the work.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Statistical AssociationSame topicItaly: Economic History and Contemporary IssuesFrench-language works237,207