MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7011609863

Modeling heterogeneity of capture probabilities in capture-recapture studies

2002· dissertation· en· W7011609863 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2002
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovariatePopulationObservableLogistic regressionEstimationStudy heterogeneityStatistical model
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In capture-recapture studies, the estimate of the size of the population is biased when members differ in the probability of capture by any source. Different log-linear models can account for the heterogeneity among individuals, using covariate information. We compare different methods modeling this observable heterogeneity using data from the Auckland Leg Ulcer Study, 1997--1998. One method is based on the Coefficient of Source Dependence (CSD) and the other one is based on logistic regression. We find that these methods reduce the bias of the estimate and we recommend their use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicCensus and Population EstimationFrench-language works237,207