Applications and Extensions of Chao's Moment Estimator for the Size of a Closed Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article revisits Chao's (1989, Biometrics45, 427-438) lower bound estimator for the size of a closed population in a mark-recapture experiment where the capture probabilities vary between animals (model M(h)). First, an extension of the lower bound to models featuring a time effect and heterogeneity in capture probabilities (M(th)) is proposed. The biases of these lower bounds are shown to be a function of the heterogeneity parameter for several loglinear models for M(th). Small-sample bias reduction techniques for Chao's lower bound estimator are also derived. The application of the loglinear model underlying Chao's estimator when heterogeneity has been detected in the primary periods of a robust design is then investigated. A test for the null hypothesis that Chao's loglinear model provides unbiased abundance estimators is provided. The strategy of systematically using Chao's loglinear model in the primary periods of a robust design where heterogeneity has been detected is investigated in a Monte Carlo experiment. Its impact on the estimation of the population sizes and of the survival rates is evaluated in a Monte Carlo experiment.
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 | 0.018 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".