A cost effective stratified two-stage sampling design to estimate the forest land area of southern Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing demand for improving the measurement of forest resources, with more frequent updating and better information on environmental variables. We explore the cost efficiency of a stratified two-stage design using area sampling to estimate the forest plantation and native forest areas in southern Chile. Analytical expressions for the approximate mean square error of combined and separate ratio estimators are derived applying Taylor linearization. Under a unified framework, this procedure allows the evaluation of the precision of design and post-design estimators for unequal unit area sizes at both stages. Monte Carlo simulations were used to assess empirically the approximate analytical measures of the mean square error and the biases associated with the ratio estimators. Adopting proportional allocation among strata and clusters, the optimal allocation among the two stages is determined. A substantial improvement in sampling precision was achieved using the separate ratio estimator and the bias was found to be small. Post-stratification based on categorical information on growing zones also improved the precision of estimating the forest plantation area and a smaller extent the native forest area. The results of this paper support a wider adoption of sampling methods to estimate land use and land cover at regional or national levels.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".