MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Joint Spatial Modeling of Recurrent Infection and Growth with Processes under Intermittent Observation

2009· article· en· W2039635914 on OpenAlexafffund
Farouk S. Nathoo

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCovariateStatisticsMultivariate statisticsComputer scienceUnivariateBayesian probabilityBayesian inferenceEconometricsKernel (algebra)Spatial analysisMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we present a new statistical methodology for longitudinal studies in forestry, where trees are subject to recurrent infection, and the hazard of infection depends on tree growth over time. Understanding the nature of this dependence has important implications for reforestation and breeding programs. Challenges arise for statistical analysis in this setting with sampling schemes leading to panel data, exhibiting dynamic spatial variability, and incomplete covariate histories for hazard regression. In addition, data are collected at a large number of locations, which poses computational difficulties for spatiotemporal modeling. A joint model for infection and growth is developed wherein a mixed nonhomogeneous Poisson process, governing recurring infection, is linked with a spatially dynamic nonlinear model representing the underlying height growth trajectories. These trajectories are based on the von Bertalanffy growth model and a spatially varying parameterization is employed. Spatial variability in growth parameters is modeled through a multivariate spatial process derived through kernel convolution. Inference is conducted in a Bayesian framework with implementation based on hybrid Monte Carlo. Our methodology is applied for analysis in an 11-year study of recurrent weevil infestation of white spruce in British Columbia.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207