Relative accuracy of spatial predictive models for lynx Lynx canadensis derived using logistic regression-AIC, multiple criteria evaluation and Bayesian approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We compared probability surfaces derived using one set of environmental variables in three Geographic Information Systems (GIS) -based approaches: logistic regression and Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC), Multiple Criteria Evaluation (MCE), and Bayesian Analysis (specifically Dempster-Shafer theory). We used lynx Lynx canadensis as our focal species, and developed our environment relationship model using track data collected in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada, during winters from 1997 to 2000. The accuracy of the three spatial models were compared using a contingency table method. We determined the percentage of cases in which both presence and absence points were correctly classified (overall accuracy), the failure to predict a species where it occurred (omission error) and the prediction of presence where there was absence (commission error). Our overall accuracy showed the logistic regression approach was the most accurate (74.51%). The multiple criteria evaluation was intermediate (39.22%), while the Dempster-Shafer (D-S) theory model was the poorest (29.90%). However, omission and commission error tell us a different story: logistic regression had the lowest commission error, while D-S theory produced the lowest omission error. Our results provide evidence that habitat modellers should evaluate all three error measures when ascribing confidence in their model. We suggest that for our study area at least, the logistic regression model is optimal. However, where sample size is small or the species is very rare, it may also be useful to explore and/or use a more ecologically cautious modelling approach (e.g. Dempster-Shafer) that would over-predict, protect more sites, and thereby minimize the risk of missing critical habitat in conservation plans.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".