Small area estimators in a simulation test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Finnish National Forest Inventory produces municipality level results either with an indirect model-based K-nearest neighbor (K-NN) estimator or a direct design-based post-stratification estimator. Design-based approach is unbiased, but not always feasible due to low number of field plots. The K-NN estimator is lacking an analytical estimator for the variance. A composite estimator combining the indirect and direct estimates could be an attractive solution. In this article, estimators for small-area estimation are analyzed in a simulation experiment with varying size small areas and varying quality auxiliary data. The potential of estimators is assessed based on the true standard errors and RMSEs in the simulation experiment. Direct estimators and composite estimators work reasonably well with varying quality models, but the performance of indirect estimators is dependent on the quality of the model used. The performance of different estimators also depends on the size of the small areas. Linear models in which the weight of plots outside the target domain is smaller than those within the target domain, performed better than an unweighted model, suggesting that localizing the models for the small areas is beneficial. EBLUP approach also performed well, both in connection of a K-NN model and a linear model.
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 | 0.046 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".