MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2196487843 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2015-0162

An improved estimator for the sampling error of local competition variables

2015· article· en· W2196487843 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Clara Antón‐Fernández, Robert E. Froese

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorStatisticsBias of an estimatorMathematicsPoisson distributionSampling (signal processing)Minimum-variance unbiased estimatorConsistent estimatorVariance (accounting)Mean squared errorEconometricsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a revised estimator for the sampling error of local competition variables that builds on the conceptual framework given by Stage and Wykoff (Stage, A.R., and Wykoff, W.R. For. Sci. 44(2): 224–238, 1998). Accurate estimation of the sampling error of local competition variables is a requisite for most approaches that correct the effects of measurement error in model fitting and application. Our revision addresses the bias inherent in Stage and Wykoff’s estimator due to the overlapping of random samples that are constrained to include a subject tree. We also argue that the adjustment that Stage and Wykoff used to account for the absence of treeless plots (zero truncation) is unnecessary. We illustrate the performance of the new estimator and the estimator of Stage and Wykoff through simulation. For a hypothetical Poisson forest (800 trees·ha−1; mean diameter at breast height, 9.8 cm), bias is negligible for the new estimator, and variance is reduced by 92%.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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