movedesign: Shiny R app to evaluate sampling design for animal movement studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Projects focused on movement behavior and home range are commonplace, but beyond a focus on choosing appropriate research questions, there are no clear guidelines for such studies. Without these guidelines, designing an animal tracking study to produce reliable estimates of space-use and movement properties (necessary to answer basic movement ecology questions), is often done in an ad hoc manner. We developed ‘ movedesign ’, a user-friendly Shiny application, which can be utilized to investigate the precision of three estimates regularly reported in movement and spatial ecology studies: home range area, speed, and distance traveled. Conceptually similar to statistical power analysis, this application enables users to assess the degree of estimate precision that may be achieved with a given sampling design; i . e ., the choices regarding data resolution (sampling interval) and battery life (sampling duration). Leveraging the ‘ ctmm ’ R package, we utilize two methods proven to handle many common biases in animal movement datasets: autocorrelated Kernel Density Estimators (AKDE) and continuous-time speed and distance (CTSD) estimators. Longer sampling durations are required to reliably estimate home range areas via the detection of a sufficient number of home range crossings. In contrast, speed and distance estimation requires a sampling interval short enough to ensure that a statistically significant signature of the animal’s velocity remains in the data. This application addresses key challenges faced by researchers when designing tracking studies, including the trade-off between long battery life and high resolution of GPS locations collected by the devices, which may result in a compromise between reliably estimating home range or speed and distance. ‘ movedesign ’ has broad applications for researchers and decision-makers, supporting them to focus efforts and resources in achieving the optimal sampling design strategy for their research questions, prioritizing the correct deployment decisions for insightful and reliable outputs, while understanding the trade-off associated with these choices.
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 | 0.018 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.116 | 0.048 |
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".