Estimating population abundance with a mixture of physical capture and PIT tag antenna detection data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inclusion of passive interrogation antenna (PIA) detection data has promise to increase precision of population abundance estimates ([Formula: see text]). However, encounter probabilities are often higher for PIAs than for physical capture. If the difference is not accounted for, [Formula: see text] may be biased. Using simulations, we estimated the magnitude of bias resulting from mixed capture and detection probabilities and evaluated potential solutions for removing the bias for closed capture models. Mixing physical capture and PIA detections (pdet) resulted in negative biases in [Formula: see text]. However, using an individual covariate to model differences removed bias and improved precision. From a case study of fish making spawning migrations across a stream-wide PIA (pdet ≤ 0.9), the coefficient of variation (CV) of [Formula: see text] declined 39%–82% when PIA data were included, and there was a dramatic reduction in time to detect a significant change in [Formula: see text]. For a second case study, with modest pdet (≤0.2) using smaller PIAs, CV ([Formula: see text]) declined 4%–18%. Our method is applicable for estimating abundance for any situation where data are collected with methods having different capture–detection probabilities.
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 | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".