MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133121762 · doi:10.1093/jssam/smaf036

Smoothed pseudo-population bootstrap methods with applications to finite population quantiles

2025· article· en· W7133121762 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey Statistics and Methodology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlliance de recherche numérique du Canada
KeywordsEstimatorResamplingConfidence intervalBootstrapping (finance)QuantileJackknife resamplingPoisson samplingPopulationCDF-based nonparametric confidence intervalSampling (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article introduces smoothed pseudo-population bootstrap methods for the purposes of mean-squared error estimation and for constructing confidence intervals for finite population quantiles. In an independent and identically distributed context, it has been shown that resampling from a smoothed estimate of the distribution function instead of the usual empirical distribution function can improve the convergence rate of the bootstrap mean-squared error estimator of a sample quantile. We extend the smoothed bootstrap to the survey sampling framework by implementing it in pseudo-population bootstrap methods for high entropy, single-stage survey designs, such as simple random sampling without replacement, Poisson sampling, and randomized systematic proportional-to-size sampling. Given a kernel function and a bandwidth, it consists of smoothing the pseudo-population from which bootstrap samples are drawn using the original sampling design. Given that the implementation of the proposed algorithms requires the specification of the bandwidth, we develop a plug-in selection method along with a grid search selection method based on a bootstrap estimate of the mean squared error. Simulation results suggest that the smoothed approach offers improved efficiency compared to the standard pseudo-population bootstrap for estimating the uncertainty of a quantile estimator, together with mixed results regarding confidence interval 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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.488
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.054 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey Statistics and MethodologySame topicSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207