Considering ecological dynamics in resource selection functions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Describing distribution and abundance is requisite to exploring interactions between organisms and their environment. Recently, the resource selection function (RSF) has emerged to replace many of the statistical procedures used to quantify resource selection by animals. 2. A RSF is defined by characteristics measured on resource units such that its value for a unit is proportional to the probability of that unit being used by an organism. It is solved using a variety of techniques, particularly the binomial generalized linear model. 3. Observing dynamics in a RSF - obtaining substantially different functions at different times or places for the same species - alerts us to the varying ecological processes that underlie resource selection. 4. We believe that there is a need for us to reacquaint ourselves with ecological theory when interpreting RSF models. We outline a suite of factors likely to govern ecologically based variation in a RSF. In particular, we draw attention to competition and density-dependent habitat selection, the role of predation, longitudinal changes in resource availability and functional responses in resource use. 5. How best to incorporate governing factors in a RSF is currently in a state of development; however, we see promise in the inclusion of random as well as fixed effects in resource selection models, and matched case-control logistic regression. 6. Investigating the basis of ecological dynamics in a RSF will allow us to develop more robust models when applied to forecasting the spatial distribution of animals. It may also further our understanding of the relative importance of ecological interactions on the distribution and abundance of species.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it