Bayesian estimation of a surface to account for a spatial trend using penalized splines in an individual-tree mixed model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unaccounted for spatial variability leads to bias in estimating genetic parameters and predicting breeding values from forest genetic trials. Previous attempts to account for large-scale continuous spatial variation employed spatial coordinates in the direction of the rows (or columns). In this research, we use an individual-tree mixed model and the tensor product of B-spline bases with a proper covariance structure for the random knot effects to account for spatial variability. Dispersion parameters were estimated using Bayesian techniques via Gibbs sampling. The procedure is illustrated with data from a progeny trial of Eucalyptus globulus subsp. globulus Labill. Four different models were used in the sequel. The first model included block effects and the three other models included a surface on a grid of either 8 × 8, 12 × 12, or 18 × 18 knots. The three models with B-splines displayed a sizeable lower value of the deviance information criterion than the model with blocks. Also, the mixed models fitting a surface displayed a consistent reduction in the posterior mean of σ2e, an increase in the posterior means of σ2A and h2DBH, and an increase of 66% (for parents) or 60% (for offspring) in the accuracy of breeding values.
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 | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".