Model-assisted estimation of domain totals, areas, and densities in two-stage sample survey designs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Model-assisted, two-stage forest survey sampling designs provide a means to combine airborne remote sensing data, collected in a sampling mode, with field plot data to increase the precision of national forest inventory estimates, while maintaining important properties of design-based inventories, such as unbiased estimation and quantification of uncertainty. In this study, we present a comprehensive set of model-assisted estimators for domain-level attributes in a two-stage sampling design, including new estimators for densities, and compare the performance of these estimators with standard poststratified estimators. Simulation was used to assess the statistical properties (bias, variability) of these estimators, with both simple random and systematic sampling configurations, and indicated that (1) all estimators were generally unbiased and (2) the use of lidar in a sampling mode increased the precision of the estimators at all assessed field sampling intensities, with particularly marked increases in precision at lower field sampling intensities. Variance estimators are generally unbiased for model-assisted estimators without poststratification, while variance estimators for model-assisted estimators with poststratification were increasingly biased as field sampling intensity decreased. In general, these results indicate that airborne remote sensing data, collected as an intermediate level of sampling, can be used to increase the efficiency of national forest inventories in remote regions.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it