Model-dependent forest stand-level inference with and without estimates of stand-effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest stands are important units of management. A stand-by-stand estimation of the mean and variance of an attribute of interest (Y) remains a priority in forest enterprise inventories. The advent of powerful and cost effective remotely sensed auxiliary variables (X) correlated with Y means that a census of X in the forest enterprise is increasingly available. In combination with a probability sample of Y, the census affords a model-dependent stand-level inference. It is important, however, that the sampling design affords an estimation of possible stand-effects in the model linking X to Y. We demonstrate, with simulated data, that failing to quantify non-zero stand-effects in the intercept of a linear population-level model can lead to a serious underestimation of the uncertainty in a model-dependent estimate of a stand mean, and by extension a confidence interval with poor coverage. We also provide an approximation to the variance of stand-effects in an intercept for the case when a sampling design does not afford estimation. Furthermore, we propose a method to correct a potential negative bias in an estimate of the variance of stand-effects when a sampling design prescribes few stands with small within-stand sample sizes.
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 | 0.029 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".