Retrieval of among-stand variances from one observation per stand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest inventories provide predictions of stand means on a routine basis from models with auxiliary variables from remote sensing as predictors and response variables from field data. Many forest inventory sampling designs do not afford a direct estimation of the among-stand variance. As consequence, the confidence interval for a model-based prediction of a stand mean is typically too narrow. We propose a new method to compute (from empirical regression residuals) an among-stand variance under sample designs that stratify sample selections by an auxiliary variable, but otherwise do not allow a direct estimation of this variance. We test the method in simulated sampling from a complex artificial population with an age class structure. Two sampling designs are used (one-per-stratum, and quasi systematic), neither recognize stands. Among-stand estimates of variance obtained with the proposed method underestimated the actual variance by 30-50%, yet 95% confidence intervals for a stand mean achieved a coverage that was either slightly better or at par with the coverage achieved with empirical linear best unbiased estimates obtained under less efficient two-stage designs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".