Model-assisted estimation of domain totals, areas, and densities in two-stage sample survey designs
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.
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 | 0.043 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".