Bibliographic record
Abstract
The design bias in the sample mean obtained from sampling the trees nearest to points randomly and uniformly distributed over a forested area can be exactly quantified in terms of the Voronoi polygons (V polygons) surrounding each tree in the forest of interest. For this sampling method, the V polygon for a prospective sample tree is its inclusion zone. The sides of such polygons are perpendicular to a line joining adjacent trees and equidistant from these trees. For any individual tree attribute Y, the design bias in such a sample mean for estimating the population mean of Y will be equal to the covariance between Y and V-polygon area V divided by the mean V-polygon area. The bias as a percent of the population mean of Y is the product of the correlation coefficient between Y and V and the coefficients of variation for Y and V multiplied by 100. This implies that attempts to estimate the means of commonly measured individual tree variables such as DBH, basal area, and crown diameter or the area from sampling trees nearest to randomly located points will likely be positively biased, and the magnitude of that bias will depend on the strength of the linear relationship to the V-polygon area, as well as the variability among the V-polygon areas and the variable of interest. It is not obvious whether increment core data will be positively or negatively biased, because this depends on the characteristics of the forest of interest. The main conclusion of the study is that the bias formula derived for unweighted estimation from sampling the tree nearest to a point indicates that bias in the range of 5%–10% or greater can occur in many forest populations.
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 | 0.019 | 0.166 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".