MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756369026 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2017-0154

Hierarchical Bayesian models for small area estimation of county-level private forest landowner population

2017· article· en· W2756369026 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Neil R. Ver Planck, Andrew O. Finley, Emily S. Huff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmall area estimationStatisticsPopulationCensusGeographyCovariateEstimationSample (material)Multilevel modelEconometricsMathematicsDemographyEconomicsEstimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS), administered by the USDA Forest Service, provides estimates of private forest ownership characteristics and owners’ attitudes and behaviors at a national, regional, and state levels. Due to sample sizes prescribed for inference at the state level, there are insufficient data to support county-level estimates. However, county-level estimates of NWOS variables are desired because ownership programs and education initiatives often occur at the county level and such information could help tailor these efforts to better match county-specific needs and demographics. Here, we present and assess methods to estimate the number of private forest ownerships at the county level for two states, Montana and New Jersey. To assess model performance, true population parameters were derived from cadastral and remote sensing data. Two small area estimation (SAE) models, the Fay-Herriot (FH) and the FH with conditional autoregressive random effects (FHCAR), improved estimated county-level population mean squared error (MSE) over that achieved by direct estimates. The proposed SAE models use covariates to improve accuracy and precision of county-level estimates. Results show total forest area, and 2010 decennial census population density covariates explained a significant portion of variability in county-level population size. These and other results suggest that the proposed SAE methods yield a statistically robust approach to deliver reliable estimates of private ownership population size and could be extended to additional important NWOS variables at the county level.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207