An Alternative to Cokriging for Situations with Small Sample Sizes

被引:0
|
作者
K. C. Abbaspour
R. Schulin
M. Th. van Genuchten
E. Schläppi
机构
[1] Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,Department of Soil Protection
[2] USDA,U.S. Salinity Laboratory
[3] ARS,undefined
[4] Colombi Schmutz Dorthe AG,undefined
来源
Mathematical Geology | 1998年 / 30卷
关键词
cokriging; small sample size; pedotransfer functions; geostatistics; parameter uncertainty; measurement error;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Lack of large datasets in soil protection studies and environmental engineering applications may deprive these fields of achieving accurate spatial estimates as derived with geostatistical techniques. A new estimation procedure, with the acronym Co_Est, is presented for situations involving primary and secondary datasets of sizes generally considered too small for geostatistical applications. For these situations, we suggest the transformation of the secondary dataset into the primary one using pedotransfer functions. The transformation will generate a larger set of the primary data which subsequently can be used in geostatistical analyses. The Co_Est procedure has provisions for handling measurement errors in the primary data, estimation errors in the converted secondary data, and uncertainty in the geostatistical parameters. Two different examples were used to demonstrate the applicability of Co_Est. The first example involves estimation of hydraulic conductivity random fields using 42 measured data and 258 values estimated from borehole profile descriptions. The second example consists of estimating chromium concentrations from 50 measured chromium data and 150 values estimated from a relationship between chromium and copper concentrations. The examples indicate that in situations where the size of the primary data is small, Co_Est can produce estimates which are comparable to cokriging estimates.
引用
收藏
页码:259 / 274
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Analysis of pilot and early phase studies with small sample sizes
    Shih, WJ
    Ohman- Strickland, PA
    Lin, Y
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2004, 23 (12) : 1827 - 1842
  • [42] Small sample sizes in the study of ontogenetic allometry; implications for palaeobiology
    Brown, Caleb Marshall
    Vavrek, Matthew J.
    PEERJ, 2015, 3
  • [43] SAMPLE SIZES FOR PREVENTION TRIALS HAVE BEEN TOO SMALL
    EDERER, F
    CHURCH, TR
    MANDEL, JS
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1993, 137 (07) : 787 - 796
  • [44] Small Sample Sizes and a False Economy for Psychiatric Clinical Trials
    Kapur, Shitij
    Munafo, Marcus
    JAMA PSYCHIATRY, 2019, 76 (07) : 676 - 677
  • [45] On the Structure of Cortical Microcircuits Inferred from Small Sample Sizes
    Vegue, Marina
    Perin, Rodrigo
    Roxin, Alex
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, 2017, 37 (35): : 8498 - 8510
  • [46] Methods to evaluate test results based on small sample sizes
    Marx, Steffen
    Grünberg, Jürgen
    Schacht, Gregor
    Civil Engineering Design, 2019, 1 (02) : 74 - 84
  • [47] ''Small group PETting'': Sample sizes in brain mapping research
    Vitouch, O
    Gluck, J
    HUMAN BRAIN MAPPING, 1997, 5 (01) : 74 - 77
  • [48] Rasch Versus Classical Equating in the Context of Small Sample Sizes
    Babcock, Ben
    Hodge, Kari J.
    EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 2020, 80 (03) : 499 - 521
  • [49] Effectiveness of Equating at the Passing Score for Exams With Small Sample Sizes
    Wolkowitz, Amanda A.
    Wright, Keith D.
    JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT, 2019, 56 (02) : 361 - 390
  • [50] Strategy for Planning Accelerated Life Tests With Small Sample Sizes
    Ma, Haiming
    Meeker, William Q.
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON RELIABILITY, 2010, 59 (04) : 610 - 619