MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964197002 · doi:10.1093/beheco/aru214

Predicting multiple behaviors from GPS radiocollar cluster data

2014· article· en· W1964197002 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bogdan Cristescu, Gordon B. Stenhouse, Mark S. Boyce

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Ecology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGlobal Positioning SystemCluster (spacecraft)Evolutionary biologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advancements in GPS radiotelemetry allow collection of vast data for a variety of species including those for which direct observations are typically not feasible. Predicting behavior from telemetry data is possible, but telemetry fix rate can influence inferences, and animal behavior itself can affect fix success. We use multinomial regression to predict behavior from GPS radiocollar data field validated with behavioral state information. Our study organism was a facultative carnivore, the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) (n = 10) from a threatened population in Alberta, Canada, monitored during 2008–2010. Models using GPS cluster parameters alone successfully predicted ungulate consumption, whereas bear bedding was sufficiently identified by models that included site-level information. Predicting more complex behaviors required models incorporating both cluster parameters and habitat characteristics. No model reliably predicted vegetation feeding, probably because this activity is shorter than the time required for cluster formation. Models built using infrequent fix rates underestimated all behaviors, with bear presence at ungulate carcass sites least sensitive to fix rate variability. Behavior influenced fix success, with highest fix acquisition occurring when bears fed on vegetation. Placing predictions into a conservation context, we show that grizzly bears modify their behavior as they move through a landscape with complex human-activity patterns on reclaimed open-pit mines, foothill, and mountain regions. The modeling approach we tested needs further applications across species and ecosystems including behavioral monitoring, quantifying activity budgeting, and identifying areas/habitats important for specific behaviors that may warrant conservation.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral EcologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207