Variance and efficiency of the combined estimator in incomplete block designs of use in forest genetics: a numerical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficiency of combined interblock-intrablock and intrablock analysis for the estimation of treatment contrasts in alpha designs is compared using Monte-Carlo simulation. The combined estimator considers treatments and replications as fixed effects and blocks as random effects, whereas the intrablock estimator considers treatments, replications, and blocks as fixed effects. The variances of the estimators are used as the criterion for comparison. The combined estimator yields more accurate estimates than the intrablock estimator when the ratio of the block to the error variance is small, especially for designs with the fewest degrees of freedom. The accuracy of both estimators is similar when the ratio of variances is large. The variance of the combined estimator is very close to that of the best linear unbiased estimator except for designs with small number of replicates and families or provenances. Approximations commonly used for the variance of the combined estimator when variances of the random effects are unknown are studied. The downward or negative bias in the estimates of the variance given by the standard approximation used in statistical packages is largest under the conditions in which the combined estimator is more efficient than the intrablock estimator. Estimates of the relative efficiency of combined estimators have an upward bias that can exceed 10% of the true value in small- and middle-sized designs with two or three replicates. In designs with four or more replicates, often used in forest genetics, the bias is negligible.
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 | 0.071 | 0.224 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".