MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028986484 · doi:10.1139/x99-247

Estimating mapped-plot forest attributes with ratios of means

2000· article· en· W2028986484 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stanley J. Zarnoch, William A. Bechtold

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorStatisticsPlot (graphics)Ratio estimatorForest plotForest inventoryMathematicsConfidence intervalForestryEconometricsGeographyBias of an estimatorForest managementMinimum-variance unbiased estimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mapped-plot design utilized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Inventory and Analysis and the National Forest Health Monitoring Programs is described. Data from 2458 forested mapped plots systematically spread across 25 states reveal that 35% straddle multiple conditions. The ratio-of-means estimator is developed as a method to obtain estimates of forest attributes from mapped plots, along with measures of variability useful for constructing confidence intervals. Basic inventory statistics from North and South Carolina were examined to see if these data satisfied the conditions necessary to qualify the ratio of means as the best linear unbiased estimator. It is shown that the ratio-of-means estimator is equivalent to the Horwitz-Thompson, the mean-of-ratios, and the weighted-mean-of-ratios estimators under certain situations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations24
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207