The unbiasedness of a generalized mirage boundary correction method for Monte Carlo integration estimators of volume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The typical “double counting” application of the mirage method of boundary correction cannot be applied to sampling systems such as critical height sampling (CHS) that are based on a Monte Carlo sample of a tree (or debris) attribute because the critical height (or other random attribute) sampled from a mirage point is generally not equal to the critical height measured from the original sample point. A generalization of the mirage method is proposed for CHS and related techniques in which new samples of critical heights or other dimensions are obtained from mirage points outside the tract boundary. This is necessary because, in the case of CHS, the critical height actually depends on the distance between the tree and a randomly located sample point. Other spatially referenced individual tree attribute or coarse woody debris (CWD) estimators that use Monte Carlo integration with importance sampling have been developed in which the tree or CWD attribute estimate also depends on the distance between the tree and the sample point. The proposed modified mirage method is shown to be design unbiased. The proof includes general application to Monte Carlo integration estimators for objects such as CWD sampled from points.
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 | 0.010 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".