Systematic sampling of discrete and continuous populations: sample selection and the choice of estimator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systematic sampling is easy, efficient, and widely used, though it is not generally recognized that a systematic sample may be drawn from the population of interest with or without restrictions on randomization. The restrictions or the lack of them determine which estimators are unbiased, when using the sampling design as the basis for inference. We describe the selection of a systematic sample, with and without restriction, from populations of discrete elements and from linear and areal continuums (continuous populations). We also provide unbiased estimators for both restricted and unrestricted selection. When the population size is known at the outset, systematic sampling with unrestricted selection is most likely the best choice. Restricted selection affords estimation of attribute totals for a population when the population size — for example, the area of an areal continuum — is unknown. Ratio estimation, however, is most likely a more precise option when the selection is restricted and the population size becomes known at the end of the sampling. There is no difference between restricted and unrestricted selection if the sampling interval or grid tessellates the frame in such a way that all samples contain an equal number of measurements. Moreover, all the estimators are unbiased and identical in this situation.
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 | 0.096 | 0.266 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".