MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195607383 · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13701

Solving the sample size problem for resource selection functions

2021· article· en· W3195607383 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in Ecology and Evolution · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Wildlife Research CenterUniversity of Georgia Research FoundationAnimal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceNational Institute of Food and AgricultureBritish Ecological SocietyEcological Society of AmericaParks CanadaMississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and ParksMaine Agricultural and Forest Experiment StationOntario Ministry of Natural Resources and ForestryU.S. Forest ServiceMinistry of Natural ResourcesU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Department of EnergyMississippi State UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Sample size determinationResource (disambiguation)Computer scienceSample (material)EconometricsStatisticsMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sample size sufficiency is a critical consideration for estimating resource selection functions (RSFs) from GPS‐based animal telemetry. Cited thresholds for sufficiency include a number of captured animals and as many relocations per animal N as possible. These thresholds render many RSF‐based studies misleading if large sample sizes were truly insufficient, or unpublishable if small sample sizes were sufficient but failed to meet reviewer expectations. We provide the first comprehensive solution for RSF sample size by deriving closed‐form mathematical expressions for the number of animals M and the number of relocations per animal N required for model outputs to a given degree of precision. The sample sizes needed depend on just 3 biologically meaningful quantities: habitat selection strength, variation in individual selection and a novel measure of landscape complexity, which we define rigorously. The mathematical expressions are calculable for any environmental dataset at any spatial scale and are applicable to any study involving resource selection (including sessile organisms). We validate our analytical solutions using globally relevant empirical data including 5,678,623 GPS locations from 511 animals from 10 species (omnivores, carnivores and herbivores living in boreal, temperate and tropical forests, montane woodlands, swamps and Arctic tundra). Our analytic expressions show that the required M and N must decline with increasing selection strength and increasing landscape complexity, and this decline is insensitive to the definition of availability used in the analysis. Our results demonstrate that the most biologically relevant effects on the utilization distribution (i.e. those landscape conditions with the greatest absolute magnitude of resource selection) can often be estimated with much fewer than animals. We identify several critical steps in implementing these equations, including (a) a priori selection of expected model coefficients and (b) regular sampling of background (pseudoabsence) data within a given definition of availability. We discuss possible methods to identify a priori expectations for habitat selection coefficients, effects of scale on RSF estimation and caveats for rare species applications. We argue that these equations should be a mandatory component for all future RSF studies.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.351 · 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