Estimating correlations among demographic parameters in population models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Estimating correlations among demographic parameters is critical to understanding population dynamics and life‐history evolution, where correlations among parameters can inform our understanding of life‐history trade‐offs, result in effective applied conservation actions, and shed light on evolutionary ecology. The most common approaches rely on the multivariate normal distribution, and its conjugate inverse Wishart prior distribution. However, the inverse Wishart prior for the covariance matrix of multivariate normal distributions has a strong influence on posterior distributions. As an alternative to the inverse Wishart distribution, we individually parameterize the covariance matrix of a multivariate normal distribution to accurately estimate variances (σ2) of, and process correlations (ρ) between, demographic parameters. We evaluate this approach using simulated capture–mark–recapture data. We then use this method to examine process correlations between adult and juvenile survival of black brent geese marked on the Yukon–Kuskokwim River Delta, Alaska (1988–2014). Our parameterization consistently outperformed the conjugate inverse Wishart prior for simulated data, where the means of posterior distributions estimated using an inverse Wishart prior were substantially different from the values used to simulate the data. Brent adult and juvenile annual apparent survival rates were strongly positively correlated (ρ = 0.563, 95% CRI 0.181–0.823), suggesting that habitat conditions have significant effects on both adult and juvenile survival. We provide robust simulation tools, and our methods can readily be expanded for use in other capture–recapture or capture‐recovery frameworks. Further, our work reveals limits on the utility of these approaches when study duration or sample sizes are small.
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 | 0.010 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".