Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 685

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

AIC Model Selection in Overdispersed Capture‐Recapture Data

Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., White, G. C.·1994·Ecology

Abstract

Selection of a proper model as a basis for statistical inference from capture—recapture data is critical. This is especially so when using open models in the analysis of multiple, interrelated data sets (e.g., males and females, with 2—3 age classes, over 3—5 areas and 10—15 yr.) The most general model considered for such data sets might contain 1000 survival and recapture parameters. This paper presents numerical results on three information—theoretic methods for model selection when the data are overdispersed (i.e., a lack of independence so that extra—binomial variation occurs). Akaike's information criterion (AIC), a second—order adjustment to AIC for bias (AIC c), and a dimension—consistent criterion (CAIC) were modified using an empirical estimate of the average overdispersion, based on quasi—likelihood theory. Quality of model selection was evaluated based on the Euclidian distance between standardized ° and ° (parameter ° is vector valued); this quantity (a type of residual sum of squares, hence donated as RSS) is a combination of squared bias and variance. Five results seem to be of general interest for these product—multinomial models. First, when there was overdispersion the most direct estimator of the variance inflation factor was positively biased and the relative bias increased with the amount of overdispersion. Second, AIC and AIC c, unadjusted for overdispersion using quasi—likelihood theory, performed poorly in selecting a model with a small RSS value when the data were overdispersed (i.e., overfitted models were selected when compared to the model with the minimum RRS value). Third, the information—theoretic criteria, adjusted for overdispersion, performed well, selected parismonious models, and had a good balance between under— and overfitting the data. Fourth, generally, the dimension—consistent criterion selected models with fewer parameters than the other criteria, had smaller RSS values, but clearly was in error by underfitting when compared with the model with the minimum RSS value. Fifth, even if the true model structure (but not the actual parameter values in the model) is known, that true model, when fitted to the data (by parameter estimation) is a relatively poor basis for statistical inference when that true model includes several, let alone many, estimated parameters that are not significantly different from O.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1939637

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Cited by

See all 685

Metadata

Authors
Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., & White, G. C.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1994-09
Volume
75
Issue
6
Pages
1780-1793
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2033662395
Cited by
685
References
36
FWCI
12.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: AIC Model Selection in Overdispersed Capture‐Recapture Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1939637
The paper
Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., & White, G. C. (1994). AIC Model Selection in Overdispersed Capture‐Recapture Data. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939637

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.