Bayesian abundance estimation from genetic mark-recapture data when not all sites are sampled: an example with the bowhead whale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Estimating abundance is one of the most fundamental and important aspects of population biology, with major implications on how the status of a population is perceived and thus on conservation and management efforts. Although typically based on one of two methods (distance sampling or mark-recapture), there are many individual identification methods that can be used for mark-recapture purposes. In recent years, the use of genetic data for individual identification and abundance estimation through mark-recapture analyses have increased, and in some situations such genetic identifications are more efficient than their field-based counterparts for population monitoring. One issue with mark-recapture analyses, regardless of which method of individual identification is used, is that the study area must provide adequate opportunities for “capturing” all individuals within a population. However, many populations are unevenly and widely distributed, making it unfeasible to adequately sample all necessary areas. Here we develop an analytical technique that accounts for unsampled locations, and provides a means to infer “missing” individuals from unsampled locations, and therefore obtain more accurate abundance estimates when it is not possible to sample all sites. This method is validated using simulations, and is used to estimate abundance of the Eastern Canada-West Greenland (EC-WG) bowhead whale population. Based on these analyses, the estimated size of this population is 9,089 individuals, with a 95% highest density interval of 5,107–17,079.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".