SAMPLING VARIABILITY AND ESTIMATES OF DENSITY DEPENDENCE: A COMPOSITE-LIKELIHOOD APPROACH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that sampling variability, if not properly taken into account, affects various ecologically important analyses. Statistical inference for stochastic population dynamics models is difficult when, in addition to the process error, there is also sampling error. The standard maximum-likelihood approach suffers from large computational burden. In this paper, I discuss an application of the composite-likelihood method for estimation of the parameters of the Gompertz model in the presence of sampling variability. The main advantage of the method of composite likelihood is that it reduces the computational burden substantially with little loss of statistical efficiency. Missing observations are a common problem with many ecological time series. The method of composite likelihood can accommodate missing observations in a straightforward fashion. Environmental conditions also affect the parameters of stochastic population dynamics models. This method is shown to handle such nonstationary population dynamics processes as well. Many ecological time series are short, and statistical inferences based on such short time series tend to be less precise. However, spatial replications of short time series provide an opportunity to increase the effective sample size. Application of likelihood-based methods for spatial time-series data for population dynamics models is computationally prohibitive. The method of composite likelihood is shown to have significantly less computational burden, making it possible to analyze large spatial time-series data. After discussing the methodology in general terms, I illustrate its use by analyzing a time series of counts of American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) from the Breeding Bird Survey data, San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) population abundance data, and spatial time series of Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) redds count data.
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 | 0.015 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".