Relative effects of sample size, detection probability, and study duration on estimation in integrated population models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding mechanistic causes of population change is critical for managing and conserving species. Integrated population models (IPMs) allow for quantifying population changes while directly relating environmental drivers to vital rates, but power of IPMs to detect trends and environmental effects on vital rates remains understudied. We simulated data for an IPM fewer than 41 scenarios to determine the power to detect trends and environmental effects on vital rates based on study duration, sample size, detection probability, and effect size. Our results indicated that temporal duration of a study and effect size, rather than sample size of each individual data set or detection probability, had the greatest influence on the power to identify trends in adult survival and fecundity. When using only 10 years of data, we were unable to identify a 50% increase in adult survival but were able to identify this increase with 22 years of data. When using only capture-recapture data in a traditional Cormack-Jolly-Seber analysis, we lacked sufficient power to identify trends in survival, and power of the Cormack-Jolly-Seber model was always less than the IPM. The IPM had greater power to identify trends and environmental effects on fecundity (e.g., we detected a 58% change in fecundity using 12 years of data). Models with effects of environmental variables on vital rates had less power than trends, likely to be due to increased annual variation in the vital rate when modeling responses to environmental effects that varied by year. Lack of power in the Cormack-Jolly-Seber analysis could be due to the relatively small variability in adult survival compared with fecundity, given the life history of our simulated species. As interannual variation in environmental conditions will probably increase with climate change, this type of analysis can help to inform the study duration needed, which may be a shifting target given future climate uncertainty and the complex nature of environmental correlations with demography.
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 | 0.258 | 0.577 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".