MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996410419 · doi:10.1111/biom.13185

On continuous‐time capture‐recapture in closed populations

2019· letter· en· W2996410419 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsActuaWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMark and recapturePoisson distributionDiscretizationBernoulli's principleComputer scienceSampling (signal processing)StatisticsDiscrete time and continuous timePopulation sizePopulationMathematicsEconometricsApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Schofield et al. (2018, Biometrics 74, 626-635) presented simple and efficient algorithms for fitting continuous-time capture-recapture models based on Poisson processes. They also demonstrated by real examples that the standard method of discretizing continuous-time capture-recapture data and then fitting traditional discrete-time models may lead to information loss in population size estimation. In this article, we aim to clarify that key to the approach of Schofield et al. (2018) is the Poisson model assumed for the number of captures of each individual throughout the study, rather than the fact of data being collected in continuous time. We further show that the method of data discretization works equally well as the method of Schofield et al. (2018), provided that a Poisson model is applied instead of the traditional Bernoulli model to the number of captures for each individual on each sampling occasion.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it