MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156524460 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118726

Mixture Models for Distance Sampling Detection Functions

2015· article· en· W2156524460 on OpenAlexfundno aff
David L. Miller, Len Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilRaincoast Conservation Foundation
KeywordsSampling (signal processing)Computer scienceParametric statisticsMonotonic functionSet (abstract data type)Function (biology)CovariateSample size determinationKey (lock)Distance samplingSelection (genetic algorithm)Model selectionStatisticsData miningAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningTransectBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a new class of models for the detection function in distance sampling surveys of wildlife populations, based on finite mixtures of simple parametric key functions such as the half-normal. The models share many of the features of the widely-used "key function plus series adjustment" (K+A) formulation: they are flexible, produce plausible shapes with a small number of parameters, allow incorporation of covariates in addition to distance and can be fitted using maximum likelihood. One important advantage over the K+A approach is that the mixtures are automatically monotonic non-increasing and non-negative, so constrained optimization is not required to ensure distance sampling assumptions are honoured. We compare the mixture formulation to the K+A approach using simulations to evaluate its applicability in a wide set of challenging situations. We also re-analyze four previously problematic real-world case studies. We find mixtures outperform K+A methods in many cases, particularly spiked line transect data (i.e., where detectability drops rapidly at small distances) and larger sample sizes. We recommend that current standard model selection methods for distance sampling detection functions are extended to include mixture models in the candidate set.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.136 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207