Multiâstate models: metapopulation and life history analyses
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Multi-state models are designed to describe populations that move among a fixed set of categorical states.The obvious application is to population interchange among geographic locations such as breeding sites or feeding areas (e.g., Hestbeck et al., 1991;Blums et al., 2003;Cam et al., 2004) but they are increasingly used to address important questions of evolutionary biology and life history strategies (Nichols & Kendall, 1995).In these applications, the states include life history stages such as breeding states.The multi-state models, by permitting estimation of stage-specific survival and transition rates, can help assess trade-offs between life history mechanisms (e.g.Yoccoz et al., 2000).These trade-offs are also important in metapopulation analyses where, for example, the pre-and post-breeding rates of transfer among subpopulations can be analysed in terms of target colony distance, density, and other covariates (e.g., Lebreton et al. 2003; Breton et al., in review).Further examples of the use of multi-state models in analysing dispersal and life-history trade-offs can be found in the session on Migration and Dispersal.In this session, we concentrate on applications that did not involve dispersal.These applications fall in two main categories: those that address life history questions using stage categories, and a more technical use of multi-state models to address problems arising from the violation of mark-recapture assumptions leading to the potential for seriously biased predictions or misleading insights from the models.Our plenary paper, by William Kendall (Kendall, 2004), gives an overview of the use of Multi-state Mark-Recapture (MSMR) models to address two such violations.The first is the occurrence of unobservable states that can arise, for example, from temporary emigration or by incomplete sampling coverage of a target population.Such states can also occur for life history reasons, such as dormancy or the inability to capture non-breeders and in these cases, the rates of transition to and from the unobservable state provide life history insights.The second failure Kendall considers is the misclassification of states (for example in models involving states for age, sex, breeding condition, etc. where these cannot be determined without error).He reviews solutions for these that encompass three approaches: constraints on parameters to ensure identifiability (the least desireable solution); incorporating additional information; and the use of subsampling that leads to the multi-state application of the Robust design.In passing, Kendall makes reference to what are probably the 3 most significant developments in the area of multi-state models since the last Euring meeting: (1) the incorporation of tag-recovery data in addition to recapture data in MSMR models;(2) a comprehensive methodology for goodness-of-fit testing and assessing parameter identifiability in MSMR models; and (3) the development of new software to make these methods accessible.Much of (2) and ( 3) is based on the landmark thesis of Olivier Gimenez (Gimenez, 2003).Two further presentations in this session followed up the plenary theme of unobservable and misclassified states.The presentation by Roger Pradel (Pradel, in press), represented in these proceedings as a brief abstract only, dealt with the problem of errors in sexing animals; an example of what Kendall refers to as bidirectional misclassification.The presentation by Marc Kry (Kry & Gregg, 2004) is, we think, the first
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».