MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207191671 · doi:10.1002/eap.2470

Conceptual and methodological advances in habitat‐selection modeling: guidelines for ecology and evolution

2021· review· en· W3207191671 on OpenAlexafffund
Joseph M. Northrup, Eric Vander Wal, Maegwin Bonar, John Fieberg, Michel P. Laforge, Martin Leclerc, Christina M. Prokopenko, Brian D. Gerber

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Applications · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCenter for Northern StudiesTrent UniversityMemorial University of NewfoundlandMinistry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institute of Food and AgricultureEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)EcologyConceptual frameworkHabitatProcess (computing)Conceptual modelPopulationComputer scienceManagement scienceEnvironmental resource managementBiologyEngineeringSociologyArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Habitat selection is a fundamental animal behavior that shapes a wide range of ecological processes, including animal movement, nutrient transfer, trophic dynamics and population distribution. Although habitat selection has been a focus of ecological studies for decades, technological, conceptual and methodological advances over the last 20 yr have led to a surge in studies addressing this process. Despite the substantial literature focused on quantifying the habitat-selection patterns of animals, there is a marked lack of guidance on best analytical practices. The conceptual foundations of the most commonly applied modeling frameworks can be confusing even to those well versed in their application. Furthermore, there has yet to be a synthesis of the advances made over the last 20 yr. Therefore, there is a need for both synthesis of the current state of knowledge on habitat selection, and guidance for those seeking to study this process. Here, we provide an approachable overview and synthesis of the literature on habitat-selection analyses (HSAs) conducted using selection functions, which are by far the most applied modeling framework for understanding the habitat-selection process. This review is purposefully non-technical and focused on understanding without heavy mathematical and statistical notation, which can confuse many practitioners. We offer an overview and history of HSAs, describing the tortuous conceptual path to our current understanding. Through this overview, we also aim to address the areas of greatest confusion in the literature. We synthesize the literature outlining the most exciting conceptual advances in the field of habitat-selection modeling, discussing the substantial ecological and evolutionary inference that can be made using contemporary techniques. We aim for this paper to provide clarity for those navigating the complex literature on HSAs while acting as a reference and best practices guide for practitioners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0080.005
Research integrity0.0070.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.008

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations217
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological ApplicationsSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207