↓ Skip to main content

A cross-validation-based approach for delimiting reliable home range estimates

Overview of attention for article published in Movement Ecology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A cross-validation-based approach for delimiting reliable home range estimates
Published in
Movement Ecology, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40462-017-0110-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric R. Dougherty, Colin J. Carlson, Jason K. Blackburn, Wayne M. Getz

Abstract

With decreasing costs of GPS telemetry devices, data repositories of animal movement paths are increasing almost exponentially in size. A series of complex statistical tools have been developed in conjunction with this increase in data. Each of these methods offers certain improvements over previously proposed methods, but each has certain assumptions or shortcomings that make its general application difficult. In the case of the recently developed Time Local Convex Hull (T-LoCoH) method, the subjectivity in parameter selection serves as one of the primary impediments to its more widespread use. While there are certain advantages to the flexibility it offers for question-driven research, the lack of an objective approach for parameter selection may prevent some users from exploring the benefits of the method. Here we present a cross-validation-based approach for selecting parameter values to optimize the T-LoCoH algorithm. We demonstrate the utility of the approach using a case study from the Etosha National Park anthrax system. Utilizing the proposed algorithm, rather than the guidelines in the T-LoCoH documentation, results in significantly different values for derived site fidelity metrics. Due to its basis in principles of cross-validation, the application of this method offers a more objective approach than the relatively subjective guidelines set forth in the T-LoCoH documentation and enables a more accurate basis for the comparison of home ranges among individuals and species, as well as among studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 22%
Researcher 17 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 48%
Environmental Science 18 22%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 6%
Computer Science 2 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 15 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,659,606
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Movement Ecology
#271
of 377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,313
of 321,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Movement Ecology
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 377 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,244 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.