Equivalence between Step Selection Functions and Biased Correlated Random Walks for Statistical Inference on Animal Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal movement has a fundamental impact on population and community structure and dynamics. Biased correlated random walks (BCRW) and step selection functions (SSF) are commonly used to study movements. Because no studies have contrasted the parameters and the statistical properties of their estimators for models constructed under these two Lagrangian approaches, it remains unclear whether or not they allow for similar inference. First, we used the Weak Law of Large Numbers to demonstrate that the log-likelihood function for estimating the parameters of BCRW models can be approximated by the log-likelihood of SSFs. Second, we illustrated the link between the two approaches by fitting BCRW with maximum likelihood and with SSF to simulated movement data in virtual environments and to the trajectory of bison (Bison bison L.) trails in natural landscapes. Using simulated and empirical data, we found that the parameters of a BCRW estimated directly from maximum likelihood and by fitting an SSF were remarkably similar. Movement analysis is increasingly used as a tool for understanding the influence of landscape properties on animal distribution. In the rapidly developing field of movement ecology, management and conservation biologists must decide which method they should implement to accurately assess the determinants of animal movement. We showed that BCRW and SSF can provide similar insights into the environmental features influencing animal movements. Both techniques have advantages. BCRW has already been extended to allow for multi-state modeling. Unlike BCRW, however, SSF can be estimated using most statistical packages, it can simultaneously evaluate habitat selection and movement biases, and can easily integrate a large number of movement taxes at multiple scales. SSF thus offers a simple, yet effective, statistical technique to identify movement taxis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".