MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4402828015 · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102832

Simulating multi-scale optimization and variable selection in species distribution modeling

2024· article· en· W4402828015 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueEcological Informatics · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésScale (ratio)Computer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Variable (mathematics)Distribution (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsGeographyCartography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Species distribution modeling (SDM) is a fundamental tool in theoretical and applied ecology. However, relatively little is known about the performance of different approaches for scale optimization, model selection, and algorithmic prediction in the context of nonlinear, multiscale and interactive relationships between environmental variables and species occurrence. Modelers often struggle to optimize a tradeoff between ecological relevance, model robustness, complexity, and overfitting. In this paper, we investigated several methods designed to optimize spatial scale and variable selection in SDMs, in each case evaluating model fitness, parsimony and predictive performance. We used a simulation approach to produce a large pool of alternative underlying habitat relationships that reflect a broad range of realistic habitat associations. We also compared several different modeling algorithms, including logistic regression with a generalized linear model (GLM), Lasso and Elastic-Net Regularized GLMs (GLMNet), and random forest (RF), as well as alternative variable and scale selection methods. We found that GLM methods employing all-subsets dredge routines for variable selection were consistently the best predictors based on all criteria of our model performance assessment and across all attributes of the simulated underlying relationship, including nonlinearity and interaction. We had expected machine learning approaches, such as random forest, to perform better in these more complex forms of species-environment relationships. GLM using dredge variable selection was also the method that included the fewest spurious covariates and included the most correct predictors as a proportion of all predictors. We found that univariate scaling was the most robust method of variable and scale selection, along with Minimal Redundancy Maximal Relevancy (MRMR) which performed equivalently. The simulation experiment presented here provides a robust assessment of simulated multi-species distribution model performance, complexity and fidelity. By simulating a large range of potential habitat relationships with varying spatial scale, effect sizes, linearity, and interactions, we comprehensively evaluated model performance across gradients of complexity of the underlying relationships and violations of classical statistical assumptions. This study provides a valuable assessment and a broader example of the power and utility of controlled simulation experiments in habitat relationships and other ecological spatial predictive modeling. • Scale optimization, model selection, and algorithmic prediction in the context of nonlinear, multiscale and interactive relationships between environmental variables and species occurrence. • We used a simulation experiment to investigate spatial scale and variable selection in SDMs. • We found that GLM methods employing all-subsets dredge routines for variable selection were consistently the best. • GLM methods using dredge variable selection were also the methods that included the fewest spurious covariates and included the most correct predictors as a proportion of all predictors. • We found that univariate scaling was the most robust method of variable and scale selection, along with Minimal Redundancy Maximal Relevancy (MRMR).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,509
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,992

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,255
Écart entre enseignants0,220 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle