Identifying Movement States From Location Data Using Cluster Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Animal movement studies regularly use movement states (e.g., slow and fast) derived from remotely sensed locations to make inferences about strategies of resource use. However, the number of movement state categories used is often arbitrary and rarely inferred from the data. Identifying groups with similar movement characteristics is a statistical problem. We present a framework based on k‐means clustering and gap statistic for evaluating the number of movement states without making a priori assumptions about the number of clusters. This allowed us to distinguish 4 movement states using turning angle and step length derived from Global Positioning System locations and head movements derived from tip switches in a neck collar of free‐ranging elk ( Cervus elaphus ) in west central Alberta, Canada. Based on movement characteristics and on the linkage between each state and landscape features, we were able to identify inter‐patch movements, intra‐patch foraging, rest, and inter‐patch foraging movements. Linking behavior to environment (e.g., state‐dependent habitat use) can inform decisions on landscape management for wildlife.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".