MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2052955510 · doi:10.1139/x07-029

“Distance-variable” estimators for sampling and change measurement

2007· article· en· W2052955510 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kim Iles, David Hugh Harrison Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)Vancouver Island University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorStatisticsSampling (signal processing)MathematicsVariable (mathematics)Plot (graphics)Sample (material)Variance (accounting)Sample size determinationComputer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The estimation procedure described is a simple technique that is applicable to virtually any plot-based sampling method and virtually any measured variable. It can be retrofitted to any existing fixed or variable plot over time by simply knowing the distance from the sampled object to the sample point. These estimators are illustrated for sampling over time as the plot size changes. An example is variable-plot sampling in forestry. Traditional estimates from sample plots can be geometrically viewed as a series of “disc shapes” where the same estimate is used for an object no matter how near the sample point is to that selected object. “Distance-variable” (DV) or “shaped” estimators have the same average value over the plot area, with some very important advantages. We believe that the DV estimate will be shown to reduce the variance of growth measurement compared with simple difference estimators. Traditional “disc” estimators are a special case of the more general DV estimators. There are no difficulties with the use of current edge-effect correction techniques, and the calculation of statistics is virtually identical to traditional methods.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→