COMBINING MULTISTATE CAPTURE–RECAPTURE DATA WITH TAG RECOVERIES TO ESTIMATE DEMOGRAPHIC PARAMETERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Matrix population models that allow an animal to occupy more than one state over time are important tools for population and evolutionary ecologists. Definition of state can vary, including location for metapopulation models and breeding state for life history models. For populations whose members can be marked and subsequently reencountered, multistate mark-recapture models are available to estimate the survival and transition probabilities needed to construct population models. Multistate models have proved extremely useful in this context, but they often require a substantial amount of data and restrict estimation of transition probabilities to those areas or states subjected to formal sampling effort. At the same time, for many species, there are considerable tag recovery data provided by the public that could be modeled in order to increase precision and to extend inference to a greater number of areas or states. Here we present a statistical model for combining multistate capture-recapture data (e.g., from a breeding ground study) with multistate tag recovery data (e.g., from wintering grounds). We use this method to analyze data from a study of Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) in the Atlantic Flyway of North America. Our analysis produced marginal improvement in precision, due to relatively few recoveries, but we demonstrate how precision could be further improved with increases in the probability that a retrieved tag is reported.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".