Step selection functions with non‐linear and random effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Step selection functions (SSFs) are used to jointly describe animal movement patterns and habitat preferences. Recent work has extended this framework to model inter‐individual differences, account for unexplained structure in animals' space use and capture temporally varying patterns of movement and habitat selection. In this paper, we formulate SSFs with penalised smooths (similar to generalised additive models) to unify new and existing extensions, and conveniently implement the models in the popular, open‐source mgcv R package. We explore non‐linear patterns of movement and habitat selection, and use the equivalence between penalised smoothing splines and random effects to implement individual‐level and spatial random effects. This framework can also be used to fit varying‐coefficient models to account for temporally or spatially heterogeneous patterns of selection (e.g. resulting from behavioural variation), or any other non‐linear interactions between drivers of the animal's movement decisions. We provide the necessary technical details to understand several key special cases of smooths and their implementation in mgcv , showcase the ecological relevance using two illustrative examples and provide R code to facilitate the adoption of these methods. This paper offers a broad overview of how smooth effects can be applied to increase the flexibility and biological realism of SSFs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".