Integrated step selection analysis: bridging the gap between resource selection and animal movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary A resource selection function is a model of the likelihood that an available spatial unit will be used by an animal, given its resource value. But how do we appropriately define availability? Step selection analysis deals with this problem at the scale of the observed positional data, by matching each ‘used step’ (connecting two consecutive observed positions of the animal) with a set of ‘available steps’ randomly sampled from a distribution of observed steps or their characteristics. Here we present a simple extension to this approach, termed integrated step selection analysis ( iSSA ), which relaxes the implicit assumption that observed movement attributes (i.e. velocities and their temporal autocorrelations) are independent of resource selection. Instead, iSSA relies on simultaneously estimating movement and resource selection parameters, thus allowing simple likelihood‐based inference of resource selection within a mechanistic movement model. We provide theoretical underpinning of iSSA , as well as practical guidelines to its implementation. Using computer simulations, we evaluate the inferential and predictive capacity of iSSA compared to currently used methods. Our work demonstrates the utility of iSSA as a general, flexible and user‐friendly approach for both evaluating a variety of ecological hypotheses, and predicting future ecological patterns.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".