Variance modelling of longitudinal height data from a<i>Pinus radiata</i>progeny test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variance components were estimated using alternative structures for the additive genetic covariance matrix (G0), for height (m) of trees measured at 10 unequally spaced ages in an open-pollinated progeny test. These structures reflected unstructured, autoregressive, banded correlation and random regressions models. The residual matrix (R0) was unstructured, and the block and plot strata matrices were autoregressive. The best model for G0considering the likelihood value and number of parameters was the autoregressive correlation form with age-specific variances and time on a natural logarithm basis. The genetic correlation between successive measures ranged from 0.93 at age 1 to 0.99 at age 14 years. Heritability increased with age from 0.09 (age 1) to 0.24 (age 7) and then declined to 0.13 at age 15. Heritabilities from the unstructured model were similar, while heritabilities assuming banded correlations were lower after age 7. The covariance structure implicit in the random regressions model was considered unsatisfactory. Using structures in G0facilitated model fitting and convergence of the likelihood maximisation algorithm. Fitting a structured matrix that reflects the relationships present in repeated measures may overcome problems of nonpositive definiteness of unstructured matrices from longitudinal data, especially when genetic variation is small.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".