Models and model selection uncertainty in estimating growth rates of endangered freshwater mussel populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Appropriate inference of population status for endangered species is extremely important. Using a single model for estimating population growth rates is typically inadequate for assessing endangered species because inferences based on only one “best” model ignore model uncertainty. In this study, the endangered dromedary pearlymussel ( Dromus dromas ) in the Clinch and Powell rivers of eastern Tennessee, USA, was used as an example to demonstrate the importance of multiple models, with consideration of environmental noises for evaluating population growth. Our results showed that more than one model deserves consideration in making inferences of population growth rate. A Bayesian model averaging approach was used to make inferences by weighting each model using the deviance information criterion. To test the uncertainty resulting from model selection and the efficiency of the Bayesian averaging approach, a simulation study was conducted on the dromedary pearlymussel populations, which showed that model selection uncertainty is very high. The results of these tests lead us to recommend using Bayesian model averaging to assess population growth status for endangered species, by balancing goodness-of-fit and selection uncertainty among alternate models.
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 | 0.027 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".