MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7005770352

Sample sizes for reliably estimating lower and upper income shares in income distribution analysis

2023· other· en· W7005770352 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueEconstor (Econstor) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiological and pharmacological studies of plants
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecileQuantileSample (material)Income sharesSample size determinationRule of thumbInequalityDistribution (mathematics)EarningsLorenz curve
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper uses distribution-free formulas for the asymptotic variances of sample quantile income shares - as typically published by statistical agencies as measures of the distribution of income inequality - to calculate how large a survey sample must be in order to estimate a more refined quantile breakdown for a given level of confidence. The approach is applied to decile and quintile earnings data to calculate required increases in sample size to obtain tail 5 percent quantal share estimates and to test changes in income shares. Simple rules of thumb are offered for such a required increase.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.353
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.353
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconstor (Econstor)Same topicBiological and pharmacological studies of plantsFrench-language works237,207