MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402828015 · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102832

Simulating multi-scale optimization and variable selection in species distribution modeling

2024· article· en· W4402828015 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel A. Cushman, Żaneta Kaszta, Patrick Burns, Christopher R. Hakkenberg, Patrick Jantz, David W. Macdonald, Jedediah F. Brodie, Mairin C. M. Deith, S. J. Goetz

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Informatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Computer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Variable (mathematics)Distribution (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Species distribution modeling (SDM) is a fundamental tool in theoretical and applied ecology. However, relatively little is known about the performance of different approaches for scale optimization, model selection, and algorithmic prediction in the context of nonlinear, multiscale and interactive relationships between environmental variables and species occurrence. Modelers often struggle to optimize a tradeoff between ecological relevance, model robustness, complexity, and overfitting. In this paper, we investigated several methods designed to optimize spatial scale and variable selection in SDMs, in each case evaluating model fitness, parsimony and predictive performance. We used a simulation approach to produce a large pool of alternative underlying habitat relationships that reflect a broad range of realistic habitat associations. We also compared several different modeling algorithms, including logistic regression with a generalized linear model (GLM), Lasso and Elastic-Net Regularized GLMs (GLMNet), and random forest (RF), as well as alternative variable and scale selection methods. We found that GLM methods employing all-subsets dredge routines for variable selection were consistently the best predictors based on all criteria of our model performance assessment and across all attributes of the simulated underlying relationship, including nonlinearity and interaction. We had expected machine learning approaches, such as random forest, to perform better in these more complex forms of species-environment relationships. GLM using dredge variable selection was also the method that included the fewest spurious covariates and included the most correct predictors as a proportion of all predictors. We found that univariate scaling was the most robust method of variable and scale selection, along with Minimal Redundancy Maximal Relevancy (MRMR) which performed equivalently. The simulation experiment presented here provides a robust assessment of simulated multi-species distribution model performance, complexity and fidelity. By simulating a large range of potential habitat relationships with varying spatial scale, effect sizes, linearity, and interactions, we comprehensively evaluated model performance across gradients of complexity of the underlying relationships and violations of classical statistical assumptions. This study provides a valuable assessment and a broader example of the power and utility of controlled simulation experiments in habitat relationships and other ecological spatial predictive modeling. • Scale optimization, model selection, and algorithmic prediction in the context of nonlinear, multiscale and interactive relationships between environmental variables and species occurrence. • We used a simulation experiment to investigate spatial scale and variable selection in SDMs. • We found that GLM methods employing all-subsets dredge routines for variable selection were consistently the best. • GLM methods using dredge variable selection were also the methods that included the fewest spurious covariates and included the most correct predictors as a proportion of all predictors. • We found that univariate scaling was the most robust method of variable and scale selection, along with Minimal Redundancy Maximal Relevancy (MRMR).

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological InformaticsSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207