Design-based diagnostics for <i>k</i>-NN estimators of forest resourcesThis article is one of a selection of papers from Extending Forest Inventory and Monitoring over Space and Time.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The k-nearest neighbours (k-NN) method constitutes a possible approach to improve the precision of the Horvitz–Thompson estimator of a single interest variable using auxiliary information at the estimation stage. Improvements are likely to occur when the neighbouring structure in the space of auxiliary variables is similar to the neighbouring structure in the space of the survey variables. Populations suitable for k-NN can be identified via the scores of the first principal component computed on the variance–covariance matrix of auxiliary variables. If the first principal component explains a large portion of the whole variability, distances among scores provide good approximations of distances in the space of auxiliary variables in such a way that the effectiveness of k-NN can be assessed by plotting the first principal component scores versus the sampled values of each of the interest variables. Monotone relationships with high values of Spearman’s correlation coefficients should denote effectiveness. Otherwise, when the first principal component explains small fractions of the total variation, an index that directly quantifies the similarity between the neighbouring structure in the space of interest and auxiliary variables is proposed. The validity of the proposed diagnostics is theoretically argued and empirically proven by a simulation study performed on a wide range of artificial and real 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 | 0.030 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".