On the identifiability of the trinomial model for mark‐recapture‐recovery studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Continuous predictors of survival present a challenge in the analysis of data from studies of marked individuals if they vary over time and can only be observed when individuals are captured. Existing methods to study the effects of such variables have followed one of two approaches. The first is to model the joint distribution of the predictor and the observed capture histories, and the second is to draw inference from the likelihood conditional on events that depend only on observed predictor values, called the trinomial model. Previous comparison of these approaches found that joint modelling provided more precise inference about the effect of the covariate while the trinomial model was less prone to issues of model mis‐specification. However, we believe that an important issue was missed. We show through mathematical analysis and numerical simulation that the trinomial model is not identifiable when the predictor has no effect on the survival probability. This also causes inferences from the trinomial model to be imprecise when the effect of the covariate on the survival probability is small. We also analyse data on the effect of body mass on the survival of meadow voles to demonstrate the importance of this issue in real applications.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".