Realized and potential efficiency for post-stratified estimation in a national forest inventory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-stratification is often used to increase the precision of estimates arising from large-area forest inventories with plots established at permanent locations. Remotely sensed data and associated spatial products are often used for developing the post-stratification, which offers a mechanism to increase precision for less cost than increasing the sample size. While important variance reductions have been shown from post-stratification, it remains unknown where observed gains lie along the continuum of possible gains. This information is needed to determine whether efforts to further improve post-stratification outcomes are warranted. In this study, two types of optimal post-stratification were compared with typical production-based post-stratifications to estimate the magnitude of remaining gains possible. Although the optimal post-stratifications were derived using methods inappropriate for operational usage, the results indicated that substantial further increases in precision for estimates of both forest area and total tree biomass could be obtained with better post-stratifications. The potential gains differed by the attribute being estimated, the population being studied, and the number of strata. Practitioners seeking to optimize post-stratification face challenges, such as evaluation of numerous auxiliary data sources, temporal misalignment between plot observations and remotely sensed data acquisition, and spatial misalignment between plot locations and remotely sensed data due to positional errors in both data types.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".