Partial stratification in two‐sample capture–recapture experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Capture heterogeneity is known to cause bias in estimates of abundance in capture–recapture experiments. This heterogeneity is often related to observable fixed characteristics of the animals such as sex. If this information can be observed for each handled animal at both sample occasions, then it is straightforward to stratify (e.g., by sex) and obtain stratum‐specific estimates. However, in many fishery experiments, it is difficult to sex all captured fish because morphological differences are slight or because of logistic constraints. In these cases, a subsample of the captured fish at each sample occasion is selected, and additional and often more costly measurements are made, such as sex determination through sacrificing the fish. Our data now consist of two types of marked animals: animals whose value of the stratification variable is unknown, and subsamples at each occasion where the value of the stratification variables are determined. In this paper, we develop and apply new methods for these types of experiments. Furthermore, given the relative costs of sampling for a simple capture and for processing the subsample, optimal allocation of effort for a given cost can be determined. We also develop methods to account for additional information (e.g., prior information about the sex ratio) and for supplemental continuous covariates such as length. These methods are applied to a problem of estimating the size of the walleye population in Mille Lacs Lake, MN.
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 | 0.050 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".