Prior choice and data requirements of Bayesian multivariate mixed effects models fit to tag-recovery data: the need for power analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Recent empirical studies have quantified correlation between survival and recovery by estimating these parameters as correlated random effects with Bayesian multivariate mixed effects models fit to tag-recovery data. In these applications, increasingly negative correlation between survival and recovery indicates increasingly additive harvest mortality. The power of mixed effects models to detect non-zero correlations has rarely been evaluated and these few studies have not focused on a common data type in the form of tag recoveries. 2. We assessed the power of multivariate mixed effects models to estimate negative correlation between annual survival and recovery. Using three priors for multivariate normal distributions, we fit mixed effects models to a mallard (Anas platyrhychos) tag-recovery dataset and to simulated data with sample sizes corresponding to different levels of monitoring intensity. We also demonstrate a method of calculating effective sample size for capture-recapture data. 3) Different priors lead to different inference about additive harvest when we fit our models to the mallard data. Our power analysis of simulated data indicated most prior distribution and sample size combinations resulted in correlation estimates with substantial bias and imprecision. Many correlation estimates spanned the available parameter space (–1,1) and were biased towards zero. Only one prior combined with our most intensive monitoring scenario allowed our models to consistently recover negative correlation without bias. Underestimating the magnitude of correlation coincided with overestimating the variability of annual survival, but not annual recovery. 4) The inadequacy of prior distributions and sample size combinations typically assumed adequate for robust inference represents a concern in the application of Bayesian mixed effects models for the purpose of informing harvest management. Our analysis approach provides a means for examining prior influence and sample size on mixed-effects models fit to capture-recapture data while emphasizing transferability of results between empirical and simulation studies.
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 | 0.126 | 0.455 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".