Likelihood based population viability analysis in the presence of observation error
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Population viability analysis (PVA) entails calculation of extinction risk, as defined by various extinction metrics, for a study population. These calculations strongly depend on the form of the population growth model and inclusion of demographic and/or environmental stochasticity. Form of the model and its parameters are determined based on observed population time series data. A typical population time series, consisting of estimated population sizes, inevitably has some observation error and likely has missing observations. In this paper, we present a likelihood based PVA in the presence of observation error and missing data. We illustrate the importance of incorporation of observation error in PVA by reanalyzing the population time series of song sparrow Melospiza melodia on Mandarte Island, British Columbia, Canada from 1975–1998. Using Akaike information criterion we show that model with observation error fits the data better than the one without observation error. The extinction risks predicted by with and without observation error models are quite different. Further analysis of possible causes for observation error revealed that some component of the observation error might be due to unreported dispersal. A complete analysis of such data, thus, would require explicit spatial models and data on dispersal along with observation error. Our conclusions are, therefore, two‐fold: 1) observation errors in PVA matter and 2) integrating these errors in PVA is not always enough and can still lead to important biases in parameter estimates if other processes such as dispersal are ignored.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".