Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of capturemarkrecapture data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a hierarchical Bayesian model (HBM) for capturemarkrecapture (CMR) data analysis. It aims at estimating the probability of capture (θi) and the total population size (Ni) in a series of I years i = 1,...,I. The HBM assumes that the θis and Nis are sampled from a common probability distribution with unknown parameters. It is compared with the model assuming independence between years in the θis and Nis (ABM). We show how a transfer of information between years is organized by the HBM. We compare the merits of HBM vs. ABM to estimate the spawning run and smolt run of an Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) population of the River Oir (France) over a period of 17 years. In the spawners case, yearly data are poorly informative. Consequently, the HBM greatly improves posterior inferences compared with the ABM in terms of dispersion and robustness to the choice of prior. In the smolts case, the HBM does not significantly improve inferences compared with the ABM because data are more informative. We discuss why hierarchical modeling should be recommended in any ecological study where the data are collected on several sampling units that share some common features.
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 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".