Methods for assessing movement path recursion with application to African buffalo in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent developments of automated methods for monitoring animal movement, e.g., global positioning systems (GPS) technology, yield high-resolution spatiotemporal data. To gain insights into the processes creating movement patterns, we present two new techniques for extracting information from these data on repeated visits to a particular site or patch ("recursions"). Identification of such patches and quantification of recursion pathways, when combined with patch-related ecological data, should contribute to our understanding of the habitat requirements of large herbivores, of factors governing their space-use patterns, and their interactions with the ecosystem. We begin by presenting output from a simple spatial model that simulates movements of large-herbivore groups based on minimal parameters: resource availability and rates of resource recovery after a local depletion. We then present the details of our new techniques of analyses (recursion analysis and circle analysis) and apply them to data generated by our model, as well as two sets of empirical data on movements of African buffalo (Syncerus caffer): the first collected in Klaserie Private Nature Reserve and the second in Kruger National Park, South Africa. Our recursion analyses of model outputs provide us with a basis for inferring aspects of the processes governing the production of buffalo recursion patterns, particularly the potential influence of resource recovery rate. Although the focus of our simulations was a comparison of movement patterns produced by different resource recovery rates, we conclude our paper with a comprehensive discussion of how recursion analyses can be used when appropriate ecological data are available to elucidate various factors influencing movement. Inter alia, these include the various limiting and preferred resources, parasites, and topographical and landscape factors.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".