WEIGHTED DISTRIBUTIONS AND ESTIMATION OF RESOURCE SELECTION PROBABILITY FUNCTIONS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how organisms selectively use resources is essential for designing wildlife management strategies. The probability that an individual uses a given resource, as characterized by environmental factors, can be quantified in terms of the resource selection probability function (RSPF). The present literature on the topic has claimed that, except when both used and unused sites are known, the RSPF is non-estimable and that only a function proportional to RSPF, namely, the resource selection function (RSF) can be estimated. This paper describes a close connection between the estimation of the RSPF and the estimation of the weight function in the theory of weighted distributions. This connection can be used to obtain fully efficient, maximum likelihood estimators of the resource selection probability function under commonly used survey designs in wildlife management. The method is illustrated using GPS collar data for mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus de Blainville 1816) in northwest British Columbia, Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it