{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020233463035019456, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.242718446601942, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Analysis of band‐recovery data in a multistate capture‐recapture framework

Dead recoveries of marked animals are commonly used to estimate survival probabilities. Band‐recovery models can be parameterized either by r (the probability of recovering a band conditional on death of the animal) or by f (the probability that an animal will be killed, retrieved, and have its band reported). The T parametrization can be implemented in a capture‐recapture framework with two states (alive and newly dead), mortality being the transition probability between the two states. The authors show here that the f parametrization can also be implemented in a multistate framework by imposing simple constraints on some parameters. They illustrate it using data on the mallard and the snow goose. However, they mention that because it does not entirely separate the individual survival and encounter processes, the f parametrization must be used with care on reduced models, or in the presence of estimates at the boundary of the parameter space. As they show, a multistate framework allows the use of powerful software for model fitting or testing the goodness‐of‐fit of models; it also affords the implementation of complex models such as those based on mixture of information or uncertain states