Bayesian removal estimation of a population size under unequal catchability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce a Bayesian probability model for the estimation of the size of an animal population from removal data. The model is based on the assumption that in the removal sampling, catchability may vary between individuals, which appears to be necessary for a realistic description of many biological populations. Heterogeneous catchability among individuals leads to a situation where the mean catchability in the population gradually decreases as the number of removals increases. Under this assumption, the model can be fitted to any removal data, i.e., there are no limitations regarding the total catch, the number of removals, or the decline of the catch. Using a published data set from removal experiments of a known population size, the model is shown to be able to estimate the population size appropriately in all cases considered. It is also shown that regardless of the statistical approach, a model that assumes equal catchability of individuals generally leads to an underestimation of the population. The example indicates that if there is only vague prior information about the variation of catchability among individuals, a very high number of successive removals may be needed to correctly estimate the population size.
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".