MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413165004 · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.70107

Integrated estimation of the spatial population density surface using semi‐continuous sampling data

2025· article· en· W4413165004 on OpenAlexaff
Charles T. T. Edwards, Nokuthaba Sibanda, Marie‐Julie Roux

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in Ecology and Evolution · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersMinistry for Primary Industries
KeywordsSampling (signal processing)EstimationStatisticsDensity estimationPopulationPopulation densityEnvironmental scienceGeographyComputer scienceMathematicsEstimatorComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mixture models are frequently used in ecology for the estimation of abundance. These models adopt a hierarchical structure in which the observations are dependent on both a detection probability and abundance at the survey site. Applications are typically to discrete survey count data. Analogous mixture models have not been developed for semi‐continuous sampling data, which are characterised by a large number of zero observations and non‐zero observations measured on a continuous scale. We attempt to bridge the gap between mixture modelling approaches developed for discrete counts and their application to semi‐continuous data. We use survival analysis to derive a relationship between a continuous measure of abundance and the probability of a zero observation, and incorporate this relationship into a two‐part, log‐normal hurdle model, with the biomass represented as a hierarchical model parameter. We apply the model to semi‐continuous marine sampling data collected from a bottom trawl fishery in New Zealand. Despite the simplicity of the parameterisation, the model is able to describe the observations and predict a relative biomass density layer over space. The approach allows mixture models to be applied to semi‐continuous ecological data. By allowing the population density distribution to be properly estimated, the methods presented here can inform the management of anthropogenic impacts on vulnerable species, as well as understanding distributional shifts that may arise due to climate change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in Ecology and EvolutionSame topicCensus and Population EstimationFrench-language works237,207