Parameter redundancy in Jolly‐Seber tag loss models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Capture-recapture experiments are conducted to estimate population parameters such as population size, survival rates, and capture rates. Typically, individuals are captured and given unique tags, then recaptured over several time periods with the assumption that these tags are not lost. However, for some populations, tag loss cannot be assumed negligible. The Jolly-Seber tag loss model is used when the no-tag-loss assumption is invalid. Further, the model has been extended to incorporate group heterogeneity, which allows parameters to vary by group membership. Many mark-recapture models become overparameterized resulting in the inability to independently estimate parameters. This is known as parameter redundancy.We investigate parameter redundancy using symbolic methods. Because of the complex structure of some tag loss models, the methods cannot always be applied directly. Instead, we develop a simple combination of parameters that can be used to investigate parameter redundancy in tag loss models.The incorporation of tag loss and group heterogeneity into Jolly-Seber models does not result in further parameter redundancies. Furthermore, using hybrid methods we studied the parameter redundancy caused by data through case studies and generated tag histories with different parameter values.Smaller capture and survival rates are found to cause parameter redundancy in these models. These problems resolve when applied to large populations.
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 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".