MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130794011 · doi:10.1002/cjs.5550360107

Analysis of band‐recovery data in a multistate capture‐recapture framework

2008· article· en· W2130794011 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Gilles Gauthier, Jean‐Dominique Lebreton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCenter for Northern Studies
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsParametrization (atmospheric modeling)Parameterized complexityMark and recaptureSimple (philosophy)Boundary (topology)Computer scienceAlgorithmStatisticsMathematicsApplied mathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dead recoveries of marked animals are commonly used to estimate survival probabilities. Band‐recovery models can be parameterized either by r (the probability of recovering a band conditional on death of the animal) or by f (the probability that an animal will be killed, retrieved, and have its band reported). The T parametrization can be implemented in a capture‐recapture framework with two states (alive and newly dead), mortality being the transition probability between the two states. The authors show here that the f parametrization can also be implemented in a multistate framework by imposing simple constraints on some parameters. They illustrate it using data on the mallard and the snow goose. However, they mention that because it does not entirely separate the individual survival and encounter processes, the f parametrization must be used with care on reduced models, or in the presence of estimates at the boundary of the parameter space. As they show, a multistate framework allows the use of powerful software for model fitting or testing the goodness‐of‐fit of models; it also affords the implementation of complex models such as those based on mixture of information or uncertain states

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207