MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077523965 · doi:10.1080/02664763.2010.491861

A modified bootstrap procedure for cluster sampling variance estimation of species richness

2011· article· en· W2077523965 on OpenAlexaff
Steen Magnussen, Ron McRoberts

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Statistics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessEstimatorStatisticsMathematicsVariance (accounting)ResamplingCluster samplingSampling (signal processing)EconometricsComputer scienceEcologyPopulationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variance estimators for probability sample-based predictions of species richness (S) are typically conditional on the sample (expected variance). In practical applications, sample sizes are typically small, and the variance of input parameters to a richness estimator should not be ignored. We propose a modified bootstrap variance estimator that attempts to capture the sampling variance by generating B replications of the richness prediction from stochastically resampled data of species incidence. The variance estimator is demonstrated for the observed richness (SO), five richness estimators, and with simulated cluster sampling (without replacement) in 11 finite populations of forest tree species. A key feature of the bootstrap procedure is a probabilistic augmentation of a species incidence matrix by the number of species expected to be ‘lost’ in a conventional bootstrap resampling scheme. In Monte-Carlo (MC) simulations, the modified bootstrap procedure performed well in terms of tracking the average MC estimates of richness and standard errors. Bootstrap-based estimates of standard errors were as a rule conservative. Extensions to other sampling designs, estimators of species richness and diversity, and estimates of change are possible.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied StatisticsSame topicCensus and Population EstimationFrench-language works237,207