Relative Selection Strength: Quantifying effect size in habitat‐ and step‐selection inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Habitat‐selection analysis lacks an appropriate measure of the ecological significance of the statistical estimates—a practical interpretation of the magnitude of the selection coefficients. There is a need for a standard approach that allows relating the strength of selection to a change in habitat conditions across space, a quantification of the estimated effect size that can be compared both within and across studies. We offer a solution, based on the epidemiological risk ratio, which we term the relative selection strength ( RSS ). For a “used‐available” design with an exponential selection function, the RSS provides an appropriate interpretation of the magnitude of the estimated selection coefficients, conditional on all other covariates being fixed. This is similar to the interpretation of the regression coefficients in any multivariable regression analysis. Although technically correct, the conditional interpretation may be inappropriate when attempting to predict habitat use across a given landscape. Hence, we also provide a simple graphical tool that communicates both the conditional and average effect of the change in one covariate. The average‐effect plot answers the question: What is the average change in the space use probability as we change the covariate of interest, while averaging over possible values of other covariates? We illustrate an application of the average‐effect plot for the average effect of distance to road on space use for elk ( Cervus elaphus ) during the hunting season. We provide a list of potentially useful RSS expressions and discuss the utility of the RSS in the context of common ecological applications.
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 | 0.150 | 0.430 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".