Poisson mixture models for regression analysisof stand-level mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Periodic stand-level mortality data from permanent plots tend to be highly variable, skewed, and frequently contain many zero observations. Such data have commonly been modeled using nonlinear mortality functions fitted by least squares, and more recently by a two stage approach incorporating a logistic regression step. This study describes a set of nonlinear regression models that structure stochastic variation about a mortality function according to basic probability distributions appropriate for non-negative count data, including the Poisson, negative binomial (NB), and generalized Poisson (GP). Also considered are zero-inflated and hurdle modifications of these basic models. The models are developed and fit to mortality data from a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) spacing trial with a conspicuous mode at 0. The sample data exhibit more variability than can be accommodated by a Poisson or modified Poisson model; the NB and GP models incorporate the extra-Poisson dispersion and offer an improved fit. A hurdle NB model best describes this sample, but, like the zero-inflated models and two-stage approach, modifies the interpretation of the mean structure and raises the question of overfitting. Considering both data-model agreement and the biological relevance of these models' components, the analysis suggests that the NB model offers a more compelling and credible inferential basis for fitting stand-level mortality functions.
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 | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".