MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Modeling Systematic Change in Stopover Duration Does Not Improve Bias in Trends Estimated from Migration Counts

2015· article· en· W576237096 on OpenAlexafffund
Tara L. Crewe, Philip D. Taylor, Denis Lepage

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsBirds CanadaAcadia UniversityWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsBird Studies CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsStatisticsPopulationCovariateDuration (music)Sampling biasSampling (signal processing)DemographyPopulation sizeMathematicsSample size determinationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of counts of unmarked migrating animals to monitor long term population trends assumes independence of daily counts and a constant rate of detection. However, migratory stopovers often last days or weeks, violating the assumption of count independence. Further, a systematic change in stopover duration will result in a change in the probability of detecting individuals once, but also in the probability of detecting individuals on more than one sampling occasion. We tested how variation in stopover duration influenced accuracy and precision of population trends by simulating migration count data with known constant rate of population change and by allowing daily probability of survival (an index of stopover duration) to remain constant, or to vary randomly, cyclically, or increase linearly over time by various levels. Using simulated datasets with a systematic increase in stopover duration, we also tested whether any resulting bias in population trend could be reduced by modeling the underlying source of variation in detection, or by subsampling data to every three or five days to reduce the incidence of recounting. Mean bias in population trend did not differ significantly from zero when stopover duration remained constant or varied randomly over time, but bias and the detection of false trends increased significantly with a systematic increase in stopover duration. Importantly, an increase in stopover duration over time resulted in a compounding effect on counts due to the increased probability of detection and of recounting on subsequent sampling occasions. Under this scenario, bias in population trend could not be modeled using a covariate for stopover duration alone. Rather, to improve inference drawn about long term population change using counts of unmarked migrants, analyses must include a covariate for stopover duration, as well as incorporate sampling modifications (e.g., subsampling) to reduce the probability that individuals will be detected on more than one occasion.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.122 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→