META-ANALYSIS OF ANIMAL MOVEMENT USING STATE-SPACE MODELS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of animal movement and behavior is being revolutionized by technology, such as satellite tags and harmonic radar, that allows us to track the movements of individual animals. However, our ability to analyze and model such data has lagged behind the sophisticated collection methods. We review problems with current methods and suggest a more powerful and flexible approach, state-space modeling, and we illustrate how these models can be posed in a meta-analytic framework so that information from individual trajectories may be combined optimally. State-space models enable us to deal with the complexity of modeling animals interacting with their environment but, unlike other methods, they allow simultaneous estimation of measurement error and process noise that are inherent in animal-trajectory data. A Bayesian framework allows us to incorporate important prior information when available and also allows meta-analytic techniques to be incorporated in a straightforward fashion. Meta-analysis enables both individual and broader-level inference from observations of multiple individual pathways. Our approach is powerful because it allows researchers to test hypotheses regarding animal movement, to connect theoretical models to data, and to use modern likelihood-based estimation techniques, all under a single statistical framework.
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 | 0.055 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".