↓ Skip to main content

On the robustness of N‐mixture models

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
21 X users

Readers on

mendeley
203 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
On the robustness of N‐mixture models
Published in
Ecology, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/ecy.2362
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

N-mixture models provide an appealing alternative to mark-recapture models, in that they allow for estimation of detection probability and population size from count data, without requiring that individual animals be identified. There is, however, a cost to using the N-mixture models: inference is very sensitive to the model's assumptions. We consider the effects of three violations of assumptions which might reasonably be expected in practice: double counting, unmodeled variation in population size over time, and unmodeled variation in detection probability over time. These three examples show that small violations of assumptions can lead to large biases in estimation. The violations of assumptions we consider are not only small qualitatively, but are also small in the sense that they are unlikely to be detected using goodness-of-fit tests. In cases where reliable estimates of population size are needed, we encourage investigators to allocate resources to acquiring additional data, such as recaptures of marked individuals, for estimation of detection probabilities. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 203 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 47 23%
Student > Master 30 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 11 5%
Other 31 15%
Unknown 43 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 83 41%
Environmental Science 55 27%
Mathematics 4 2%
Computer Science 3 1%
Engineering 2 <1%
Other 9 4%
Unknown 47 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2025.
All research outputs
#2,286,643
of 32,125,052 outputs
Outputs from Ecology
#911
of 8,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,330
of 361,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology
#24
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,125,052 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,118 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 361,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.