Quantifying partial migration with sex-ratio balancing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partial migration, the phenomenon in which animal populations are composed of both migratory and nonmigratory individuals, is widespread among migrating animals. The proportion of migrants in these populations has direct influences on population genetics and dynamics, ecosystem dynamics, mating systems, evolution, and responses to environmental change, yet there are very few studies that measure the proportion of migrants. This is because existing methods to estimate the proportion of migrants are time-consuming and expensive. In this paper, we demonstrate a new method for estimating the proportion of migrants in a population based on sex ratio measurements. Many partially migratory taxa exhibit sex-biased migration or residency, and in these cases, the sex ratios of migrants and nonmigrants are fundamentally related to the proportion of migrants in the population. We define this relationship quantitatively and show how it can be used to infer the proportion of migrants in a population through a process we term “sex-ratio balancing”. We obtain Bayesian estimates of proportion of migrants and quantify the uncertainty in these estimates with highest posterior density intervals. Lastly, we validate the sex-ratio balancing approach with a Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Walbaum in Artedi, 1792) data set. Sex-ratio balancing holds promise as a tool for quantifying partial migration and filling a key data gap about partially migratory taxa.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".