A comprehensive framework for handling location error in animal tracking data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.037 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".