Continuous Covariates in Mark‐Recapture‐Recovery Analysis: A Comparison of Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time varying, individual covariates are problematic in experiments with marked animals because the covariate can typically only be observed when each animal is captured. We examine three methods to incorporate time varying, individual covariates of the survival probabilities into the analysis of data from mark-recapture-recovery experiments: deterministic imputation, a Bayesian imputation approach based on modeling the joint distribution of the covariate and the capture history, and a conditional approach considering only the events for which the associated covariate data are completely observed (the trinomial model). After describing the three methods, we compare results from their application to the analysis of the effect of body mass on the survival of Soay sheep (Ovis aries) on the Isle of Hirta, Scotland. Simulations based on these results are then used to make further comparisons. We conclude that both the trinomial model and Bayesian imputation method perform best in different situations. If the capture and recovery probabilities are all high, then the trinomial model produces precise, unbiased estimators that do not depend on any assumptions regarding the distribution of the covariate. In contrast, the Bayesian imputation method performs substantially better when capture and recovery probabilities are low, provided that the specified model of the covariate is a good approximation to the true data-generating mechanism.
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 | 0.111 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".