Estimating volume growth from successive double sampling for stratification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Volume growth is a key indicator in forest management and planning and, accordingly, an integral part of the estimation procedure of forest resources from sample based inventories. Growth estimation from successive double sampling for stratification (2SS) is somewhat challenging and has not been sufficiently addressed in the pertinent literature. Applying 2SS on successive occasions, with updated stratification on each occasion, may lead to fluctuation of sampling units among the strata and to a certain number of sample plots that have to be discarded or that have to be newly established on the second occasion, to obtain the required per-strata sampling proportions, which are stipulated in advance. After presenting a notation to implement growth estimation into 2SS standard formulas, the question of strata shifts and the occurrence of discarded and of new sample plots in the context of growth estimation is addressed. Although growth, unlike net change, can only be estimated from direct observations on remeasured sample plots, it was shown that ignoring discarded or new plots might lead to severely biased estimators. Modified estimators for mean growth and variances are provided and their application is illustrated using data from a repeated survey in a central German forest district.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".