Fast evaluation of study designs for spatially explicit capture–recapture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spatially explicit capture–recapture methods use data from the detection of marked animals at known points in space to estimate animal population density without bias from edge effects. Detection is by means of stationary devices such as traps, automatic cameras or DNA hair snags. Data collection is often expensive, and it is not obvious how to optimize the frequency of sampling and the spatial layout of detectors. Results from a pilot study may be extrapolated by simulation to predict the effectiveness of different configurations of multiple detectors, but simulation is slow and requires technical expertise. Another approach for evaluating novel designs is to compute intermediate variables such as the expected number of detected individuals E( n ) and expected number of recapture events E( r ), and to seek relationships between these variables and quantities of interest such as precision and power. We present formulae for the expected counts and power. For many scenarios the relative standard error ( RSE ) of estimated density is close to , and for maximum precision E( n ) ≈ E( r ). We compare the approximation for with more rigorous results from simulation. Computation of E( n ) and E( r ) is deterministic and much faster than simulation, so it is readily included in interactive software for designing studies with enough power to answer ecological questions. The related approximation for is adequate for many purposes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".