Spatial semiparametric models improve estimates of species abundance and distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate estimates of abundance are imperative for successful conservation and management. Classical, stratified abundance estimators provide unbiased estimates of abundance, but such estimators may be imprecise and impede assessment of population status and trend when the distribution of individuals is highly variable in space. Model-based procedures that account for important environmental covariates can improve overall precision, but frequently there is uncertainty about the contribution of particular environmental variables and a lack of information about variables that are important determinants of abundance. We develop a general semiparametric mixture model that incorporates measured habitat variables and a nonparametric smoothing term to account for unmeasured variables. We contrast this spatial habitat approach with two stratified abundance estimators and compare the three models using an intensively managed marine fish, darkblotched rockfish (Sebastes crameri). We show that the spatial habitat model yields more precise, biologically reasonable, and interpretable estimates of abundance than the classical methods. Our results suggest that while design-based estimators are unbiased, they may exaggerate temporal variability of populations and strongly influence inference about population trend. Furthermore, when such estimates are used in broader meta-analyses, such imprecision may affect the broader biological inference (e.g., the causes and consequences of the variability of populations).
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 | 0.012 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".