An integrated model decomposing the components of detection probability and abundance in unmarked populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate estimates of population abundance are essential to both theoretical and applied ecology. Rarely are all individuals detected during a survey and abundance models often incorporate some form of imperfect detection. Detection probability, however, consists of three components: probability of presence during a survey, probability of availability given presence, and probability of detection given availability and presence. We develop an integrated model to separate these three detection components and provide abundance estimates for the available, present, and superpopulation of individuals. Our framework integrates several common survey methods for unmarked populations: spatially and temporally replicated counts, distance sampling data, and time‐of‐detection data. Simulations indicated relatively unbiased estimates for detection and availability probabilities. Negative bias in estimated superpopulation abundance was present with three temporally replicated surveys, but greatly reduced with six surveys. In a case study of Island Scrub‐Jays (Aphelocoma insularis), posterior modes for presence, availability, and detection probabilities were 0.78, 0.96, and 0.26, respectively, from 10‐min point counts repeated at 97 sites on three occasions, with noticeable differences among available, present, and superpopulation abundance estimates. This generalizable framework integrates common sampling protocols and provides joint inferences on the components of detection probability, spatial and non‐spatial temporary emigration, and abundance in unmarked populations.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".