Spatial autoregressive models for statistical inference from ecological data
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
Abstract Ecological data often exhibit spatial pattern, which can be modeled as autocorrelation. Conditional autoregressive (CAR) and simultaneous autoregressive (SAR) models are network‐based models (also known as graphical models) specifically designed to model spatially autocorrelated data based on neighborhood relationships. We identify and discuss six different types of practical ecological inference using CAR and SAR models, including: (1) model selection, (2) spatial regression, (3) estimation of autocorrelation, (4) estimation of other connectivity parameters, (5) spatial prediction, and (6) spatial smoothing. We compare CAR and SAR models, showing their development and connection to partial correlations. Special cases, such as the intrinsic autoregressive model (IAR), are described. Conditional autoregressive and SAR models depend on weight matrices, whose practical development uses neighborhood definition and row‐standardization. Weight matrices can also include ecological covariates and connectivity structures, which we emphasize, but have been rarely used. Trends in harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina ) in southeastern Alaska from 463 polygons, some with missing data, are used to illustrate the six inference types. We develop a variety of weight matrices and CAR and SAR spatial regression models are fit using maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods. Profile likelihood graphs illustrate inference for covariance parameters. The same data set is used for both prediction and smoothing, and the relative merits of each are discussed. We show the nonstationary variances and correlations of a CAR model and demonstrate the effect of row‐standardization. We include several take‐home messages for CAR and SAR models, including (1) choosing between CAR and IAR models, (2) modeling ecological effects in the covariance matrix, (3) the appeal of spatial smoothing, and (4) how to handle isolated neighbors. We highlight several reasons why ecologists will want to make use of autoregressive models, both directly and in hierarchical models, and not only in explicit spatial settings, but also for more general connectivity models.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it