MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Smoothing Population Size Estimates for Time-Stratified Mark-Recapture Experiments Using Bayesian P-Splines

2011· article· en· W2047333075 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Simon J. Bonner, Carl J. Schwarz

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersHort InnovationPacific Institute for the Mathematical SciencesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSalmoMark and recaptureStatisticsBayesian probabilitySample (material)PopulationSample size determinationSmoothingPopulation sizeSampling (signal processing)Fish <Actinopterygii>MathematicsEconometricsComputer scienceFisheryBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Petersen-type mark-recapture experiments are often used to estimate the number of fish or other animals in a population moving along a set migration route. A first sample of individuals is captured at one location, marked, and returned to the population. A second sample is then captured farther along the route, and inferences are derived from the numbers of marked and unmarked fish found in this second sample. Data from such experiments are often stratified by time (day or week) to allow for possible changes in the capture probabilities, and previous methods of analysis fail to take advantage of the temporal relationships in the stratified data. We present a Bayesian, semiparametric method that explicitly models the expected number of fish in each stratum as a smooth function of time. Results from the analysis of historical data from the migration of young Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) along the Conne River, Newfoundland, and from a simulation study indicate that the new method provides more precise estimates of the population size and more accurate estimates of uncertainty than the currently available methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicCensus and Population EstimationFrench-language works237,207