A guide to developing resource selection functions from telemetry data using generalized estimating equations and generalized linear mixed models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resource selection functions (RSF) are often developed using satellite (ARGOS) or Global Positioning System (GPS) telemetry datasets, which provide a large amount of highly correlated data. We discuss and compare the use of generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) and generalized estimating equations (GEE) for using this type of data to develop RSFs. GLMMs directly model differences among caribou, while GEEs depend on an adjustment of the standard error to compensate for correlation of data points within individuals. Empirical standard errors, rather than model-based standard errors, must be used with either GLMMs or GEEs when developing RSFs. There are several important differences between these approaches; in particular, GLMMs are best for producing parameter estimates that predict how management might influence individuals, while GEEs are best for predicting how management might influence populations. As the interpretation, value, and statistical significance of both types of parameter estimates differ, it is important that users select the appropriate analytical method. We also outline the use of k-fold cross validation to assess fit of these models. Both GLMMs and GEEs hold promise for developing RSFs as long as they are used appropriately.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.038 |
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".