Uncertainty in population estimates: A meta‐analysis for petrels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Population estimates are commonly generated and used in conservation science. All estimates carry inherent uncertainty, but little attention has been given to when and how this uncertainty limits their use. This requires an understanding of the specific purposes for which population estimates are intended, an assessment of the level of uncertainty each purpose can tolerate, and information on current uncertainty. We conducted a review and meta‐analysis for a widespread group of seabirds, the petrels, to better understand how and why population estimates are being used. Globally petrels are highly threatened, and aspects of their ecology make them difficult to survey, introducing high levels of uncertainty into population estimates. We found that by far the most common intended use of population estimates was to inform status and trend assessments, while less common uses were trialling methods to improve estimates and assessing threat impacts and conservation outcomes. The mean coefficient of variation for published estimates was 0.17 (SD = 0.14), with no evidence that uncertainty has been reduced through time. As a consequence of this high uncertainty, when we simulated declines equivalent to thresholds commonly used to trigger management, only 5% of studies could detect significant differences between population estimates collected 10 years apart for populations declining at a rate of 30% over three generations. Reporting of uncertainty was variable with no dispersion statistics reported with 38% of population estimates and most not reporting key underlying parameters: nest numbers/density and nest occupancy. We also found no correlation between uncertainty in petrel population estimates and either island size, body size or species threat status – potential predictors of uncertainty. Key recommendations for managers are to be mindful of uncertainty in past population estimates if aiming to collect contemporary estimates for comparison, to report uncertainty clearly for new estimates, and to give careful consideration to whether a proposed estimate is likely to achieve the requisite level of certainty for the investment in its generation to be warranted. We recommend a practitioner‐based value of information assessment to confirm where there is value in reducing uncertainty.
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 | 0.040 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".