Minimum chi-square method for estimating population size in capture-recapture experiments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Closed population capture-recapture estimation of population size is difficult under heterogeneous capture probabilities. We introduce the minimum chi-square method which can handle multi-occasion capture-recapture data. It complements likelihood methods with elements that can lead to confidence intervals and assessment of goodness-of-fit. We conduct a comprehensive study on the minimum chi-square method for estimating the size of a closed population using multiple-occasion capture-recapture data under heterogeneous capture probability. We also develop two different bootstrap techniques that can be combined with any underlying estimator, be it the minimum chi-square estimator or a likelihood estimator, to perform useful inference for estimating population size. We present a simulation study on the minimum chi-square method and apply it to analyze white stork multiple capture-recapture data. Under certain conditions, the chi-square method outperforms the likelihood based methods.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it