MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018157066 · doi:10.3390/f3010114

Sector Sampling—Synthesis and Applications

2012· article· en· W2018157066 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nicholas Smith, Kim Iles

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
KeywordsPolygon (computer graphics)Sampling (signal processing)TransectMathematicsStatisticsSelection (genetic algorithm)GeometryComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionEcologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sector sampling is a new and simple approach to sampling objects or borders. This approach would be especially useful for sampling objects in small discrete areas or “polygons” with lots of internal or external edge, but it may be extended to sampling any object regardless of polygon size. Sector plots are wedge-shaped with a fixed sector angle. The probability of object selection is constant and equal to the sector angle in degrees divided by 360°. A unique property of sector sampling is that the point from which the angle originates may be located subjectively when the sector direction is at random. Another advantage over traditional sampling (such as fixed or variable area plots) is that there is no edge effect; that is, there is no altering of selection probabilities of objects close to polygon boundaries. Various approaches are described for deriving polygon means and totals with their associated variances. We review the genesis of sector sampling and develop two new components: sub-sampling using fixed area plots and line sampling using the sector arcs as transects. Sector sampling may be extended to measuring a variety of objects such as trees, shrubs, plants, birds, animal trails and polygon borders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207