MODELING INDIVIDUAL TREE MORTALITY RATES USING MARGINAL AND RANDOM EFFECTS REGRESSION MODELS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Developing models to predict tree mortality using data from long‐term repeated measurement data sets can be difficult and challenging due to the nature of mortality as well as the effects of dependence on observations. Marginal (population‐averaged) generalized estimating equations (GEE) and random effects (subject‐specific) models offer two possible ways to overcome these effects. For this study, standard logistic, marginal logistic based on the GEE approach, and random logistic regression models were fitted and compared. In addition, four model evaluation statistics were calculated by means of K‐fold cross‐valuation. They include the mean prediction error, the mean absolute prediction error, the variance of prediction error, and the mean square error. Results from this study suggest that the random effects model produced the smallest evaluation statistics among the three models. Although marginal logistic regression accommodated for correlations between observations, it did not provide noticeable improvements of model performance compared to the standard logistic regression model that assumed impendence. This study indicates that the random effects model was able to increase the overall accuracy of mortality modeling. Moreover, it was able to ascertain correlation derived from the hierarchal data structure as well as serial correlation generated through repeated measurements.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".