MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922443277 · doi:10.1093/forsci/fxy070

A Jackknife Estimator of Variance for a Random Tessellated Stratified Sampling Design

2019· article· en· W2922443277 on OpenAlexaff
Steen Magnussen, Thomas Nord‐Larsen

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJackknife resamplingEstimatorStatisticsStratified samplingSimple random sampleSampling designVariance (accounting)MathematicsSampling (signal processing)Population variancePoisson samplingPopulationBias of an estimatorEconometricsMinimum-variance unbiased estimatorComputer scienceImportance samplingMonte Carlo methodSlice samplingAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Semisystematic sampling designs—in which a population area frame is tessellated into cells, and a randomly located sample is taken from each cell—affords random tessellated stratified (RTS) Horvitz–Thompson-type estimators. Forest inventory applications with RTS estimators are rare, possibly because of computational complexities with the estimation of variance. To reduce this challenge, we propose a jackknife estimator of variance for RTS designs. We demonstrate an application with a model-assisted ratio of totals estimator and data from the Danish National Forest Inventory. RTS estimators of standard error were, as a rule, smaller than comparable estimates obtained under the assumption of simple random sampling. The proposed jackknife estimator performed well.

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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.173
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.173
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueForest ScienceSame topicSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207