Predicting the temperature-driven development of stage-structured insect populations with a Bayesian hierarchical model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The management of forest pests relies on an accurate understanding of the species’ phenology. Thermal performance curves (TPCs) have traditionally been used to model insect phenology; many such models have been proposed and fitted to data from both wild and laboratory-reared populations, most of which have used maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). Analyses typically present point estimates of parameters with confidence intervals, but estimates of the correlations among TPC parameters are rarely provided. Neglecting aspects of model uncertainty such as correlation among parameters may lead to incorrect confidence intervals of predictions. This paper implements a Bayesian hierarchical model of insect phenology incorporating individual variation, quadratic variation in development rates across insects’ larval stages, and non-parametric adjustment terms that allow for deviations from a parametric TPC. We use Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) for estimation; the model is fitted to a laboratory-reared spruce budworm population as a case study. We assessed the accuracy of the model using stratified, 10-fold cross-validation. Using the posterior samples, we found prediction intervals for spruce budworm development for a given year.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".