Nonparametric Rank Tests for Independence in Opinion Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonparametric rank tests for independence between two characteristics are commonly used in many social opinion surveys. When both characteristics are ordinal in nature, tests based on rank correlations such as those due to Spearman and Kendall are often used. The case where some ties exist has already been considered whereas Alvo and Cabilio (1995) have studied the case when there are missing values but no ties in the record. However, it frequently happens that the survey data may contain simultaneouslymany tied observations and/or many missing values. A naive approach is to simply discard the missing observations and then to make use of the rank correlations adjusted for ties. This approach would be less powerful as it does not fully utilize the information associated with the incomplete data set. In this article, we generalize Alvo and Cabilio’s notion of distance between two rankings to incorporate tied and missing observations, and define new test statistics based on the Spearman and Kendall rank correlation coefficients.We determine the asymptotic distribution of the Spearman test statistic and compare its efficiency with the corresponding statistic based on the naive approach. The proposed test is then applied to a real data set collected from an opinion survey conducted in Hong Kong.
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 | 0.282 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".