Using information criteria to select the correct variance-covariance structure for longitudinal data in ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Ecological data sets often use clustered measurements or use repeated sampling in a longitudinal design. Choosing the correct covariance structure is an important step in the analysis of such data, as the covariance describes the degree of similarity among the repeated observations. 2. Three methods for choosing the covariance are: the Akaike information criterion (AIC), the quasi-information criterion (QIC) and the deviance information criterion (DIC). We compared the methods using a simulation study and using a data set that explored effects of forest fragmentation on avian species richness over 15 years. 3. The overall success was 80·6% for the AIC, 29·4% for the QIC and 81·6% for the DIC. For the forest fragmentation study the AIC and DIC selected the unstructured covariance, whereas the QIC selected the simpler autoregressive covariance. Graphical diagnostics suggested that the unstructured covariance was probably correct. 4. We recommend using DIC for selecting the correct covariance structure.
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 | 0.165 | 0.485 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".