Energy‐based step selection analysis: Modelling the energetic drivers of animal movement and habitat use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The energetic gains from foraging and costs of movement are expected to be key drivers of animal decision-making, as their balance is a large determinant of body condition and survival. This fundamental perspective is often missing from habitat selection studies, which mainly describe correlations between space use and environmental features, rather than the mechanisms behind these correlations. To address this gap, we present a novel parameterisation of step selection functions (SSFs), that we term the energy selection function (ESF). In this model, the likelihood of an animal selecting a movement step depends directly on the corresponding energetic gains and costs, and we can therefore assess how moving animals choose habitat based on energetic considerations. The ESF retains the mathematical convenience and practicality of other SSFs and can be quickly fitted using standard software. In this article, we outline a workflow, from data gathering to statistical analysis, and use a case study of polar bears Ursus maritimus to demonstrate application of the model. We explain how defining gains and costs at the scale of the movement step allows us to include information about resource distribution, landscape resistance and movement patterns. We further demonstrate this process with a case study of polar bears and show how the parameters can be interpreted in terms of selection for energetic gains and against energetic costs. The ESF is a flexible framework that combines the energetic consequences of both movement and resource selection, thus incorporating a key mechanism into habitat selection analysis. Further, because it is based on familiar habitat selection models, the ESF is widely applicable to any study system where energetic gains and costs can be derived, and has immense potential for methodological extensions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".