Effects of sample size and model form on the accuracy of model-based estimators of growing stock volume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we investigate the use of model-based inference in forest surveys in which auxiliary data are available as a probability sample. We evaluate the effects of model form and sample size on estimators of growing stock volume, based on different types of remotely sensed auxiliary data. The study was performed through Monte Carlo sampling simulation using a two-phase sampling design within a simulated study area resembling the conditions in mid-western Finland. We show that the choice of model has a minor to moderate effect on the precision of model-based estimators. Similarly, the choice of estimator of the variance–covariance matrix of model parameter estimates, which is at the core of uncertainty assessment in model-based inference, was also found to have a minor to moderate effect on the precision of model-based estimators. Regarding sample sizes, the model error contribution to the total variance remains the same regardless of the sample size of the first phase (i.e., the size of the sample of auxiliary data); to reduce the model-error contribution, there is a need to increase the sample size of the second phase (i.e., the size of the sample of field plots for developing regression models). As a baseline for comparisons, model-assisted estimators were applied and found to be about equally precise as the model-based estimators, in accordance with the theory for the case when models are estimated from the sample data.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".