MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimating the annual number of breeding attempts from breeding dates using mixture models

2009· article· en· W2168978281 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Cornulier, David A. Elston, Peter Arcese, Tim G. Benton, David J. T. Douglas, Xavier Lambin, Jane M. Reid, Robert A. Robinson, William J. Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApproximate Bayesian computationNest (protein structural motif)CensusInferencePopulationEcologyBiologyBayesian probabilityStatistical modelEstimationBayesian inferenceStatisticsReproductive successDemographyComputer scienceMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Well-established statistical methods exist to estimate variation in a number of key demographic rates from field data, including life-history transition probabilities and reproductive success per attempt. However, our understanding of the processes underlying population change remains incomplete without knowing the number of reproductive attempts individuals make annually; this is a key demographic rate for which we have no satisfactory method of estimating. Using census data to estimate this parameter from requires disaggregating the overlying temporal distributions of first and subsequent breeding attempts. We describe a Bayesian mixture method to estimate the annual number of reproductive attempts from field data to provide a new tool for demographic inference. We validate our method using comprehensive data on individually-marked song sparrows Melospiza melodia, and then apply it to more typical nest record data collected over 45 years on yellowhammers Emberiza citrinella. We illustrate the utility of our method by testing, and rejecting, the hypothesis that declines in UK yellowhammer populations have occurred concurrently with declines in annual breeding frequency.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations43
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207