Conditional likelihood approach for analyzing single visit abundance survey data in the presence of zero inflation and detection error
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current methods to correct for detection error require multiple visits to the same survey location. Many historical datasets exist that were collected using only a single visit, and logistical/cost considerations prevent many current research programs from collecting multiple visit data. In this paper, we explore what can be done with single visit count data when there is detection error. We show that when appropriate covariates that affect both detection and abundance are available, conditional likelihood can be used to estimate the regression parameters of a binomial–zero‐inflated Poisson (ZIP) mixture model and correct for detection error. We use observed counts of Ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapilla) to illustrate the estimation of the parameters for the binomial–zero‐inflated Poisson mixture model using a subset of data from one of the largest and longest ecological time series datasets that only has single visits. Our single visit method has the following characteristics: (i) it does not require the assumptions of a closed population or adjustments caused by movement or migration; (ii) it is cost effective, enabling ecologists to cover a larger geographical region than possible when having to return to sites; and (iii) its resultant estimators appear to be statistically and computationally highly efficient. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.040 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".