Population-averaged predictions with generalized linear mixed-effects models in forestry: an estimator based on Gauss−Hermite quadrature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data in forestry are often spatially and (or) serially correlated. In the last two decades, mixed models have become increasingly popular for the analysis of such data because they can relax the assumption of independent observations. However, when the relationship between the response variable and the covariates is nonlinear, as is the case in generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs), population-averaged predictions cannot be obtained from the fixed effects alone. This study proposes an estimator, which is based on a five-point Gauss−Hermite quadrature, for population-averaged predictions in the context of GLMM. The estimator was tested through Monte Carlo simulation and compared with a regular generalized linear model (GLM). The estimator was also applied to a real-world case study, a harvest model. The results showed that GLM predictions were unbiased but that their confidence intervals did not achieve their nominal coverage. On the other hand, the proposed estimator yielded unbiased predictions with reliable confidence intervals. The predictions based on the fixed effects of a GLMM exhibited the largest biases. If statistical inferences are needed, the proposed estimator should be used. It is easily implemented as long as the random effect specification does not contain multiple random effects for the same hierarchical level.
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 | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".