Comparison of estimators in one-phase two-stage Poisson sampling in forest inventories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of Poisson sampling, numerous adjustments to classical estimators have been proposed that are intended to compensate for inflated variance due to random sample size. However, such adjustments have never been applied to extensive forest inventories. This work investigates the performances of four estimators for the timber volume in one-phase two-stage forest inventories, where trees in the first stage are selected, at the plot level, by concentric circles or angle-count methods and a subset thereof are selected by Poisson sampling for further measurements to get a better estimation. The original two-stage estimator is the sum of two components: the first is the mean of Horwitz–Thompson estimators using simple volume approximations, based on diameter and species alone, of all first-stage trees in each inventory plot, and the second is the mean of Horwitz–Thompson estimators based on the differences between the simple volume approximations and refined volume determinations based on further diameter and height measurements on the second-stage trees within each inventory plot. This two-stage estimator is particularly useful because it provides unbiased estimates even if the simple prediction model is not correct, which is particularly important for small area estimation. The other three estimators rely on adjustments of the second component of the original estimator that are adapted from estimators proposed in the literature by L.R. Grosenbaugh and C.-E. Särndal. It turns out that these adjustments introduce a negligible bias and that the original simple estimator performs just as well or even better than the new estimators with respect to the variance.
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 | 0.034 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".