Semiparametric empirical likelihood inference for abundance from one‐inflated capture–recapture data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abundance estimation from capture-recapture data is of great importance in many disciplines. Analysis of capture-recapture data is often complicated by the existence of one-inflation and heterogeneity problems. Simultaneously taking these issues into account, existing abundance estimation methods are usually constructed on the basis of conditional likelihood under one-inflated zero-truncated count models. However, the resulting Horvitz-Thompson-type estimators may be unstable, and the resulting Wald-type confidence intervals may exhibit severe undercoverage. In this paper, we propose a semiparametric empirical likelihood (EL) approach to abundance estimation under one-inflated binomial and Poisson regression models. To facilitate the computation of the EL method, we develop an expectation-maximization algorithm. We also propose a new score test for the existence of one-inflation and prove its asymptotic normality. Our simulation studies indicate that compared with existing estimators, the proposed score test is more powerful and the maximum EL estimator has a smaller mean square error. The advantages of our approaches are further demonstrated by analyses of prinia data from Hong Kong and drug user data from Bangkok.
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 | 0.010 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".