Cluster Sampling: A Pervasive, Yet Little Recognized Survey Design in Fisheries Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cluster sampling is a common survey design used pervasively in fisheries research to sample fish populations, but it is not widely recognized by researchers. Because fish collected via cluster sampling are not independent of each other, standard simple random sampling estimators and statistical tests that assume independence cannot be used to make inferences about fish populations. If the clustered nature of fisheries data is ignored, the main consequence is that the type I error rate of common statistical tests will be severely inflated and significant differences will often be found in group comparisons where none exist. The goal of this paper is to provide an introduction to the estimation of population attributes and analysis of fisheries data collected via cluster sampling. This article addresses the nature of clustered fisheries data, reviews the random cluster sampling estimators of population attributes, explores the implications of violating the assumption of independence in hypothesis testing, and reviews current statistical approaches that can be used to analyze appropriately clustered data. Received November 8, 2013; accepted February 27, 2014
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it