An Evaluation of Sex‐Age‐Kill (SAK) Model Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The sex‐age‐kill (SAK) model is widely used to estimate abundance of harvested large mammals, including white‐tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ). Despite a long history of use, few formal evaluations of SAK performance exist. We investigated how violations of the stable age distribution and stationary population assumption, changes to male or female harvest, stochastic effects (i.e., random fluctuations in recruitment and survival), and sampling efforts influenced SAK estimation. When the simulated population had a stable age distribution and λ > 1, the SAK model underestimated abundance. Conversely, when λ < 1, the SAK overestimated abundance. When changes to male harvest were introduced, SAK estimates were opposite the true population trend. In contrast, SAK estimates were robust to changes in female harvest rates. Stochastic effects caused SAK estimates to fluctuate about their equilibrium abundance, but the effect dampened as the size of the surveyed population increased. When we considered both stochastic effects and sampling error at a deer management unit scale the resultant abundance estimates were within ±121.9% of the true population level 95% of the time. These combined results demonstrate extreme sensitivity to model violations and scale of analysis. Without changes to model formulation, the SAK model will be biased when λ ≠ 1. Furthermore, any factor that alters the male harvest rate, such as changes to regulations or changes in hunter attitudes, will bias population estimates. Sex‐age‐kill estimates may be precise at large spatial scales, such as the state level, but less so at the individual management unit level. Alternative models, such as statistical age‐at‐harvest models, which require similar data types, might allow for more robust, broad‐scale demographic assessments.
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 | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".