Effects of measurement error on Monte Carlo integration estimators of tree volume: sample diameters measured at random upper-stem heights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study of the effects of measurement error was conducted on importance sampling and control variate sampling estimators of tree stem volume in which sample diameters are measured at randomly selected upper-stem heights. It was found that these estimators were unbiased in the presence of additive mean zero and multiplicative mean one measurement error applied to random samples of upper-stem diameter squared. However, biases due to measurement error are present if additive or multiplicative error is applied to upper-stem diameter rather than to upper-stem diameter squared. This is significant, as it appears that most of the previous studies on the magnitude of upper-stem diameter measurement error implicitly assume that the mean error is centered around the diameter rather than about the square of the diameter. Application of typical upper-stem measurement error obtained from previous studies to bias formulae derived here indicates that the bias could be a concern for small trees and with additive measurement error within ranges found in previous studies. Formulae for the variances of importance sampling and control variate sampling are derived, which include the contribution of both measurement error and sampling error. Results from previous studies of Monte Carlo integration estimator sampling error are combined with results from studies of upper-stem measurement error to obtain estimates of the typical magnitude of the contribution of measurement error to total estimator variability. Increases in upper-stem sample size may be warranted due to the impact of measurement error if precise estimates of stem volume at the individual-tree level are desired.
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 | 0.113 | 0.484 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".