Comment on “Are survival rates for northern spotted owls biased?”Appears in Can. J. Zool.<b>83</b>: 1386–1390.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Loehle et al. recently estimated survival rates from radio-telemetered northern spotted owls ( Strix occidentalis caurina (Merriam, 1898)) and suggested that survival rates estimated for this species from capture–recapture studies were negatively biased, which subsequently resulted in the negatively biased estimates of rates of population change (λ) reported by Anthony et al. (Wildl. Monogr. No. 163, pp. 1–47 (2006)) . We argue that their survival estimates were inappropriate for comparison with capture–recapture estimates because (i) the manner in which they censored radio-telemetered individuals had the potential to positively bias their survival estimates, (ii) their estimates of survival were not valid for evaluating bias, and (iii) the size and distribution of their radiotelemetry study areas were sufficiently different from capture–recapture study areas to preclude comparisons. In addition, their inferences of negative bias in rates of population change estimated by Anthony et al. were incorrect and reflected a misunderstanding about those estimators.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.021 |
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".