Hierarchical Bayesian modelling with habitat and time covariates for estimating riverine fish population size by successive removal method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a hierarchical Bayesian modelling (HBM) framework for estimating riverine fish population size from successive removal data via electrofishing. It is applied to the estimation of the population of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) juveniles in the Oir River (France). The data set consists of 10 sampling sites sampled by one or two removals over a period of 20 years (1986–2005). We develop and contrast four models to assess the effect of temporal variations and habitat type on the density of fish and the probability of capture. The Bayes factor and the deviance information criterion are used to compare these models. The most credible and parsimonious model is the one that accounts for the effects of the years and the habitat type on the density of fish. It is used to extrapolate the population size in the entire river reach. This paper illustrates that HBM successfully accommodates large but sparse data sets containing poorly informative data for some units. Its conditional structure enables it to borrow strength from data-rich to data-poor units, thus improving the estimations. Predictions of the population size of the entire river reach can be derived, while accounting for all sources of uncertainty.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".