Prior choice and data requirements of Bayesian multivariate hierarchical models fit to tag‐recovery data: The need for power analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent empirical studies have quantified correlation between survival and recovery by estimating these parameters as correlated random effects with hierarchical Bayesian multivariate models fit to tag‐recovery data. In these applications, increasingly negative correlation between survival and recovery has been interpreted as evidence for increasingly additive harvest mortality. The power of these hierarchal models to detect nonzero correlations has rarely been evaluated, and these few studies have not focused on tag‐recovery data, which is a common data type. We assessed the power of multivariate hierarchical models to detect negative correlation between annual survival and recovery. Using three priors for multivariate normal distributions, we fit hierarchical effects models to a mallard (Anas platyrhychos) tag‐recovery data set and to simulated data with sample sizes corresponding to different levels of monitoring intensity. We also demonstrate more robust summary statistics for tag‐recovery data sets than total individuals tagged. Different priors led to substantially different estimates of correlation from the mallard data. Our power analysis of simulated data indicated most prior distribution and sample size combinations could not estimate strongly negative correlation with useful precision or accuracy. Many correlation estimates spanned the available parameter space (−1,1) and underestimated the magnitude of negative correlation. Only one prior combined with our most intensive monitoring scenario provided reliable results. Underestimating the magnitude of correlation coincided with overestimating the variability of annual survival, but not annual recovery. The inadequacy of prior distributions and sample size combinations previously assumed adequate for obtaining robust inference from tag‐recovery data represents a concern in the application of Bayesian hierarchical models to tag‐recovery data. Our analysis approach provides a means for examining prior influence and sample size on hierarchical 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 | 0.140 | 0.487 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".