<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Kenneth P. Burnham</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Thomas R. Stanley</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>1998</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;Specification of an appropriate model is critical to valid statistical inference. Given the “true model” for the data is unknown, the goal of model selection is to select a plausible approximating model that balances model bias and sampling variance. Model selection based on information criteria such as AIC or its variant AIC&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;, or criteria like CAIC, has proven useful in a variety of contexts including the analysis of open-population capture-recapture data. These criteria have not been intensively evaluated for closed-population capture-recapture models, which are integer parameter models used to estimate population size (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;N&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;), and there is concern that they will not perform well. To address this concern, we evaluated AIC, AIC&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;, and CAIC model selection for closed-population capture-recapture models by empirically assessing the quality of inference for the population size parameter&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;N&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;. We found that AIC-, AIC&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;-, and CAIC-selected models had smaller relative mean squared errors than randomly selected models, but that confidence interval coverage on&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;N&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;was poor unless unconditional variance estimates (which incorporate model uncertainty) were used to compute confidence intervals. Overall, AIC and AIC&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;outperformed CAIC, and are preferred to CAIC for selection among the closed-population capture-recapture models we investigated. A model averaging approach to estimation, using AIC, AIC&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;, or CAIC to estimate weights, was also investigated and proved superior to estimation using AIC-, AIC&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;-, or CAIC-selected models. Our results suggested that, for model averaging, AIC or AIC&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;should be favored over CAIC for estimating weights.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1002/(SICI)1521-4036(199808)40:4%3C475::AID-BIMJ475%3E3.0.CO;2-%23</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>Wiley</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Information-theoretic model selection and model averaging for closed-population capture-recapture studies</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>