Covariate and multinomial: Accounting for distance in movement in capture–recapture analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many biological quantities cannot be measured directly but rather need to be estimated from models. Estimates from models are statistical objects with variance and, when derived simultaneously, covariance. It is well known that their variance-covariance (VC) matrix must be considered in subsequent analyses. Although it is always preferable to carry out the proposed analyses on the raw data themselves, a two-step approach cannot always be avoided. This situation arises when the parameters of a multinomial must be regressed against a covariate. The Delta method is an appropriate and frequently recommended way of deriving variance approximations of transformed and correlated variables. Implementing the Delta method is not trivial, and there is a lack of a detailed information on the procedure in the literature for complex situations such as those involved in constraining the parameters of a multinomial distribution. This paper proposes a how-to guide for calculating the correct VC matrices of dependant estimates involved in multinomial distributions and how to use them for testing the effects of covariates in post hoc analyses when the integration of these analyses directly into a model is not possible. For illustrative purpose, we focus on variables calculated in capture-recapture models, but the same procedure can be applied to all analyses dealing with correlated estimates with multinomial distribution and their variances and covariances.
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 | 0.022 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".