A new design for sampling with adaptive sample plots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adaptive cluster sampling (ACS) is a sampling technique for sampling rare and geographically clustered populations. Aiming to enhance the practicability of ACS while maintaining some of its major characteristics, an adaptive sample plot design is introduced in this study which facilitates field work compared to “standard” ACS. The plot design is based on a conditional plot expansion: a larger plot (by a pre-defined plot size factor) is installed at a sample point instead of the smaller initial plot if a pre-defined condition is fulfilled. This study provides insight to the statistical performance of the proposed adaptive plot design. A design-unbiased estimator is presented and used on six artificial and one real tree position maps to estimate density (number of objects per ha). The performance in terms of coefficient of variation is compared to the non-adaptive alternative without a conditional expansion of plot size. The adaptive plot design was superior in all cases but the improvement depends on (1) the structure of the sampled population, (2) the plot size factor and (3) the critical value (the minimum number of objects triggering an expansion). For some spatial arrangements the improvement is relatively small. The adaptive design may be particularly attractive for sampling in rare and compactly clustered populations with an appropriately chosen plot size factor.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".