Extending density surface models to include multiple and double-observer survey data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial models of density and abundance are widely used in both ecological research ( e.g ., to study habitat use) and wildlife management ( e.g. , for population monitoring and environmental impact assessment). Increasingly, modellers are tasked with integrating data from multiple sources, collected via different observation processes. Distance sampling is an efficient and widely used survey and analysis technique. Within this framework, observation processes are modelled via detection functions. We seek to take multiple data sources and fit them in a single spatial model. Density surface models (DSMs) are a two-stage approach: first accounting for detectability via distance sampling methods, then modelling distribution via a generalized additive model. However, current software and theory does not address the issue of multiple data sources. We extend the DSM approach to accommodate data from multiple surveys, collected via conventional distance sampling, double-observer distance sampling (used to account for incomplete detection at zero distance) and strip transects. Variance propagation ensures that uncertainty is correctly accounted for in final estimates of abundance. Methods described here are implemented in the dsm R package. We briefly analyse two datasets to illustrate these new developments. Our new methodology enables data from multiple distance sampling surveys of different types to be treated in a single spatial model, enabling more robust abundance estimation, potentially over wider geographical or temporal domains.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".