Robust Inference from Conditional Logistic Regression Applied to Movement and Habitat Selection Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conditional logistic regression (CLR) is widely used to analyze habitat selection and movement of animals when resource availability changes over space and time. Observations used for these analyses are typically autocorrelated, which biases model-based variance estimation of CLR parameters. This bias can be corrected using generalized estimating equations (GEE), an approach that requires partitioning the data into independent clusters. Here we establish the link between clustering rules in GEE and their effectiveness to remove statistical biases in variance estimation of CLR parameters. The current lack of guidelines is such that broad variation in clustering rules can be found among studies (e.g., 14-450 clusters) with unknown consequences on the robustness of statistical inference. We simulated datasets reflecting conditions typical of field studies. Longitudinal data were generated based on several parameters of habitat selection with varying strength of autocorrelation and some individuals having more observations than others. We then evaluated how changing the number of clusters impacted the effectiveness of variance estimators. Simulations revealed that 30 clusters were sufficient to get unbiased and relatively precise estimates of variance of parameter estimates. The use of destructive sampling to increase the number of independent clusters was successful at removing statistical bias, but only when observations were temporally autocorrelated and the strength of inter-individual heterogeneity was weak. GEE also provided robust estimates of variance for different magnitudes of unbalanced datasets. Our simulations demonstrate that GEE should be estimated by assigning each individual to a cluster when at least 30 animals are followed, or by using destructive sampling for studies with fewer individuals having intermediate level of behavioural plasticity in selection and temporally autocorrelated observations. The simulations provide valuable information to build reliable habitat selection and movement models that allow for robustness of statistical inference without removing excessive amounts of ecological information.
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 | 0.061 | 0.235 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".