Using Google Earth™ and Geographical Information System data as method to delineate sample domains for an urban household surveys: the case of Maroua (Far North Region-Cameroon)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Getting a random household sample during a survey can be expensive and very difficult especially in urban area and non-specialist. This study aimed to test an alternative method using freely available aerial imagery. METHODS: A gridded map and random selection method was used to select households for interviews. A hundred numbered of points were put along the edges of an updated map of Maroua. Then two numbers were randomly draw at a time and a line was drawn between those two numbers. A lot of different kinds of shapes of different sizes obtained were numbered. Ten shapes were randomly draw and the one selected were considered as 'neighbourhoods'. A grid of 30 m × 30 m was drawn over each and then numbered. 202 grids considered here as households were randomly selected from the ten neighbourhoods for interviews. RESULTS: Out of 202 households visited, only 4 were found to be something other than a house. In addition, 30 sampled households (14.85%) were abandoned or the occupants had relocated elsewhere. This method resulted in an accuracy level of 72%, its advantage is the ability to generate efficient random sample at relatively low cost as well the time required. CONCLUSIONS: The method proposed in this study was efficient and cost-effective when compared to the infield generation of a household inventory or Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking of households. It can then be used by researchers in low-incomes countries where funding for research is a challenge. However, this method needs to train the investigators on how to use the GPS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".