Revisiting resource selection probability functions and single‐visit methods: clarification and extensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Models accounting for imperfect detection are important. Single‐visit ( SV ) methods have been proposed as an alternative to multiple‐visit methods to relax the assumption of closed population. Knape & Korner‐Nievergelt (Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2015) showed that under certain models of probability of detection, SV methods are statistically non‐identifiable leading to biased population estimates. There is a close relationship between estimation of the resource selection probability function ( RSPF ) using weighted distributions and SV methods for occupancy and abundance estimation. We explain the precise mathematical conditions needed for RSPF estimation as stated in Lele & Keim (Ecology, 87, 2006, 3021). The identical conditions that remained unstated in our papers on SV methodology are needed for SV methodology to work. We show that the class of admissible models is quite broad and does not excessively restrict the application of the RSPF or the SV methodology. To complement the work by Knape and Korner‐Nievergelt, we study the performance of multiple‐visit methods under the scaled logistic detection function and a much wider set of situations. In general, under the scaled logistic detection function, multiple‐visit methods also lead to biased estimates. As a solution to this problem, we extend the SV methodology to a class of models that allows use of scaled probability function. We propose a multinomial extension of SV methodology that can be used to check whether the detection function satisfies the RSPF condition or not. Furthermore, we show that if the scaling factor depends on covariates, then it can also be estimated. We argue that the instances where the RSPF condition is not satisfied are rare in practice. Hence, we disagree with the implication in Knape & Korner‐Nievergelt (Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2015) that the need for RSPF condition makes SV methodology irrelevant in practice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".