MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Removing GPS collar bias in habitat selection studies

2004· article· en· W2117835647 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGlobal Positioning SystemStatisticsSampling (signal processing)TerrainWeightingSampling biasEnvironmental scienceCollarRange (aeronautics)Sample size determinationMathematicsComputer scienceGeographyCartographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Compared to traditional radio‐collars, global positioning system (GPS) collars provide finer spatial resolution and collect locations across a broader range of spatial and temporal conditions. However, data from GPS collars are biased because vegetation and terrain interfere with the satellite signals necessary to acquire a location. Analyses of habitat selection generally proceed without correcting for this known sampling bias. We documented the effects of bias in resource selection functions (RSF) and compared the effectiveness of two bias‐correction techniques. The effects of environmental conditions on the probability of a GPS collar collecting a location were modelled for three brands of collar using data collected in 24‐h trials at 194 test locations. The best‐supported model was used to create GPS‐biased data from unbiased animal locations. These data were used to assess the effects of bias given data losses in the range of 10–40% at both 1‐ and 6‐h sampling intensities. We compared the sign, value and significance of coefficients derived using biased and unbiased data. With 6‐h locations we observed type II error rates of 30–40% given as little as a 10% data loss. Biased data also produced coefficients that were significantly more negative than unbiased estimates. Increasing the sampling intensity from 6‐ to 1‐h locations eliminated type II errors but increased the magnitude of coefficient bias. No type I errors or changes in sign were observed. We applied sample weighting and iterative simulation given a 30% data loss. For a biased vegetation type, simulation reduced more type II errors than weighting, most probably because the original sample size was re‐established. However, selection for areas near trails, which was influenced by a biased vegetation type, showed fewer type II errors after weighting existing animal locations than after simulation. Both techniques corrected 100% and ≥ 80% of the biased coefficients at the 6‐ and 1‐h sampling intensities, respectively. Synthesis and applications. This study demonstrates that GPS error is predictable and biases the coefficients of resource selection models dependant upon the GPS sampling intensity and the level of data loss. We provide effective alternatives for correcting bias and discuss applying corrections under different sampling designs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.124 · 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