Statistical inference with randomized nomination sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this dissertation, we develop several new inference procedures that are based on randomized nomination sampling (RNS). The first problem we consider is that of constructing distribution-free confidence intervals for quantiles for finite populations. The required algorithms for computing coverage probabilities of the proposed confidence intervals are presented. The second problem we address is that of constructing nonparametric confidence intervals for infinite populations. We describe the procedures for constructing confidence intervals and compare the constructed confidence intervals in the RNS setting, both in perfect and imperfect ranking scenario, with their simple random sampling (SRS) counterparts. Recommendations for choosing the design parameters are made to achieve shorter confidence intervals than their SRS counterparts. The third problem we investigate is the construction of tolerance intervals using the RNS technique. We describe the procedures of constructing one- and two-sided RNS tolerance intervals and investigate the sample sizes required to achieve tolerance intervals which contain the determined proportions of the underlying population. We also investigate the efficiency of RNS-based tolerance intervals compared with their corresponding intervals based on SRS. A new method for estimating ranking error probabilities is proposed. The final problem we consider is that of parametric inference based on RNS. We introduce different data types associated with different situation that one might encounter using the RNS design and provide the maximum likelihood (ML) and the method of moments (MM) estimators of the parameters in two classes of distributions; proportional hazard rate (PHR) and proportional reverse hazard rate (PRHR) models.
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 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".