MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034519133 · doi:10.1101/2020.06.12.130195

A comprehensive framework for handling location error in animal tracking data

2020· preprint· en· W3034519133 on OpenAlexaff
Christen H. Fleming, Jonathan Drescher‐Lehman, Michael Noonan, Thomas S. Akre, Donald J. Brown, Madaline M. Cochrane, Nandintsetseg Dejid, Vickie L. DeNicola, Christopher S. DePerno, J. N. Dunlop, Nicholas P. Gould, Autumn‐Lynn Harrison, Jack Hollins, Hiroaki Ishii, Yayoi Kaneko, Roland Kays, Shaun S. Killen, Barbara Koeck, Sergio A. Lambertucci, Scott LaPoint, Emília Patrícia Medici, Bernd‐Ulrich Meyburg, Timothy A. Miller, Ron Moen, Thomas Mueller, Thomas Pfeiffer, Kyana N. Pike, Alexandre Roulin, Kamran Safi, Romain Séchaud, Anne K. Scharf, Jill M. Shephard, Jared A. Stabach, Kevin Stein, Christopher M. Tonra, Koji Yamazaki, William F. Fagan, Justin M. Calabrese

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersTree Research and Education Endowment Fund
KeywordsGlobal Positioning SystemComputer sciencePaceScale (ratio)Range (aeronautics)Tracking (education)Data miningLocation dataData scienceGeographyReal-time computingCartographyTelecommunicationsGeodesyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Animal tracking data are being collected more frequently, in greater detail, and on smaller taxa than ever before. These data hold the promise to increase the relevance of animal movement for understanding ecological processes, but this potential will only be fully realized if their accompanying location error is properly addressed. Historically, coarsely-sampled movement data have proved invaluable for understanding large scale processes (e.g., home range, habitat selection, etc.), but modern fine-scale data promise to unlock far more ecological information. While GPS location error can often be ignored in coarsely sampled data, fine-scale data require more care, and tools to do this have not kept pace. Current approaches to dealing with location error largely fall into two categories—either discarding the least accurate location estimates prior to analysis or simultaneously fitting movement and error parameters in a hidden-state model. In some cases these approaches can provide a level of correction, but they have known limitations, and in some cases they can be worse than doing nothing. Here, we provide a general framework to account for location error in the analysis of triangulated and trilatcralizcd animal tracking data, which includes GPS, Argos Doppler-shift, triangulated VHF, trilatcralized acoustic and cellular location data. We apply our error-modelselection framework to 190 GPS, cellular, and acoustic devices representing 27 models from 14 manufacturers. Collectively, these devices were used to track a wide range of taxa comprising birds, fish, reptiles, and mammals of different sizes and with different behaviors, in urban, suburban, and wild settings. In almost half of the tested device models, error-model selection was necessary to obtain the best performing error model, and in almost a quarter of tested device models, the reported DOP values were actually misinformative. Then, using empirical tracking data from multiple species, we provide an overview of modern, error-informed movement analyses, including continuous-time path reconstruction, home-range distribution, home-range overlap, speed, and distance estimation. Adding to these techniques, we introduce new error-informed estimators for outlier detection and autocorrelation visualization. Because error-induced biases depend on many factors—sampling schedule, movement characteristics, tracking device, habitat, etc.—differential bias can easily confound biological inference and lead researchers to draw false conclusions. We demonstrate how error-informed analyses on calibrated tracking data can provide more accurate estimates are that are insensitive to location error, and allow researchers to use all of their data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207