Parametric bootstrap estimators for hybrid inference in forest inventories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In forestry, the variable of interest is not always directly available from forest inventories. Consequently, practitioners have to rely on models to obtain predictions of this variable of interest. This context leads to hybrid inference, which is based on both the probability design and the model. Unfortunately, the current analytical hybrid estimators for the variance of the point estimator are mainly based on linear or nonlinear models and their use is limited when the model reaches a high level of complexity. An alternative consists of using a variance estimator based on resampling methods (Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse surveys. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA). However, it turns out that a parametric bootstrap (BS) estimator of the variance can be biased in contexts of hybrid inference. In this study, we designed and tested a corrected BS estimator for the variance of the point estimator, which can easily be implemented as long as all of the stochastic components of the model can be properly simulated. Like previous estimators, this corrected variance estimator also makes it possible to distinguish the contribution of the sampling and the model to the variance of the point estimator. The results of three simulation studies of increasing complexity showed no evidence of bias for this corrected variance estimator, which clearly outperformed the BS variance estimator used in previous studies. Since the implementation of this corrected variance estimator is not much more complicated, we recommend its use in contexts of hybrid inference based on complex models.
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 | 0.049 | 0.202 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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".