Latent Multinomial Models for Extended Batch-Mark Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Batch marking is common and useful for many capture-recapture studies where individual marks cannot be applied due to various constraints such as timing, cost, or marking difficulty. When batch marks are used, observed data are not individual capture histories but a set of counts including the numbers of individuals first marked, marked individuals that are recaptured, and individuals captured but released without being marked (applicable to some studies) on each capture occasion. Fitting traditional capture-recapture models to such data requires one to identify all possible sets of capture-recapture histories that may lead to the observed data, which is computationally infeasible even for a small number of capture occasions. In this paper, we propose a latent multinomial model to deal with such data, where the observed vector of counts is a non-invertible linear transformation of a latent vector that follows a multinomial distribution depending on model parameters. The latent multinomial model can be fitted efficiently through a saddlepoint approximation based maximum likelihood approach. The model framework is very flexible and can be applied to data collected with different study designs. Simulation studies indicate that reliable estimation results are obtained for all parameters of the proposed model. We apply the model to analysis of golden mantella data collected using batch marks in Central Madagascar.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".