• Aucun résultat trouvé

Appendix 2. Model selection results (delta QAICc

N/A
N/A
Info
Télécharger
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "Appendix 2. Model selection results (delta QAICc"

Copied!
4
0
0

Chargement.... (Voir le texte intégral maintenant)

Texte intégral

(1)

Appendix 2. Model selection results (delta QAICc < 4) for the bird detection data obtained from four 10- min recordings collected by automated recording units in 2013 and 2014 at 109 stations in Hearst Forest Sustainable Forest Licence, Ontario, Canada.

Species Model K QAICc

QAICc

Akaike weight BBWA (c-

hat = 1.61)

(Spruce.cover) p(Year + Visit) 8 145.78 0 0.30

(Spruce.cover) p(.) 4 147.37 1.59 0.14

(Spruce.cover) p(Year + Visit + Method) 9 147.73 1.95 0.11 (Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Year + Visit) 9 147.83 2.05 0.11

(Spruce.cover) p(Method) 5 149.19 3.41 0.06

(Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(Year + Visit) 9 149.45 3.67 0.05

BRCR (c- hat = 1.53)

(Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(Method) 6 140.90 0 0.17

(Spruce.cover) p(Method) 5 141.51 0.62 0.13

(Spruce.cover) p(Method + Veg.less2m) 6 141.92 1.02 0.10 (Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(Method + Veg.less2m) 7 142.04 1.15 0.10 (Spruce.cover) p(Method + Stand.age) 6 142.43 1.54 0.08 (Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(Method + Stand.age) 7 142.78 1.89 0.07 (Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method) 6 143.57 2.67 0.05 (Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method + Veg.less2m) 7 143.87 2.97 0.04 (Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(.) 5 143.98 3.09 0.04 Appendix 3.

(2)

(Spruce.cover) p(Method + Veg.less2m + Method:Veg.less2m)

7 144.01 3.11 0.04

(Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(Method + Veg.less2m + Method:Veg.less2m)

8 144.16 3.27 0.03

(Spruce.cover) p(Method + Stand.age + Method:Stand.age)

7 144.36 3.47 0.03

(Spruce.cover) p(.) 4 144.65 3.75 0.03

(Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(Method + Stand.age + Method:Stand.age)

8 144.78 3.89 0.02

GCKI (c- hat = 1.17)

(Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method + Stand.age) 7 685.70 0 0.76 (Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method + Stand.age +

Method:Stand.age)

8 687.97 2.27 0.24

HETH* (Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method + Stand.age) 6 957.65 0 0.55 (Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(Method + Stand.age) 6 959.89 2.25 0.18 (Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method + Stand.age +

Method:Stand.age)

7 959.92 2.28 0.18

LISP (c- hat = 1.50)

(Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method + Stand.age) 7 161.48 0 0.53 (Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method + Stand.age +

Method:Stand.age)

8 162.44 0.96 0.33

(3)

MOWA* (Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(Method + Stand.age + Method:Stand.age)

7 237.08 0 0.56

(Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(Method + Stand.age) 6 237.60 0.52 0.43

NOWA (c-hat = 1.34)

(Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(Method + Stand.age) 7 189.93 0 0.15 (Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method + Stand.age) 7 189.97 0.05 0.15 (Spruce.cover) p(Method + Stand.age) 6 190.52 0.60 0.11 (Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(Method + Stand.age +

Method:Stand.age)

8 190.96 1.04 0.09

(Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method + Stand.age + Method:Stand.age)

8 191.03 1.10 0.09

(Spruce.cover) p(Method + Stand.age + Method:Stand.age)

7 191.44 1.51 0.07

(Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(Method) 6 191.61 1.69 0.07 (Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method) 6 191.72 1.80 0.06

(Spruce.cover) p(Method) 5 191.81 1.88 0.06

(Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method + Veg.less2m) 7 193.65 3.72 0.02 (Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(Method + Veg.less2m) 7 193.89 3.97 0.02

RCKI (c- hat = 1.72)

(Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Year + Visit + Method) 10 606.53 0 0.63 (Spruce.cover) p(Year + Visit + Method) 9 608.27 1.73 0.26

(4)

SWTH (c- hat = 1.35)

(Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Year + Visit + Method) 10 575.84 0 0.50 (Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method + Stand.age) 7 578.21 2.38 0.15 (Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method) 6 578.67 2.83 0.12 (Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method + Stand.age +

Method:Stand.age)

5 579.70 3.86 0.07

YBFL (c- hat = 2.20)

(Spruce.cover) p(Method + Veg.less2m) 6 444.07 0 0.21 (Spruce.cover) p(Year + Visit + Method) 9 445.31 1.24 0.12

(Spruce.cover) p(Method) 5 445.51 1.43 0.10

(Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method + Veg.less2m) 7 446.06 1.98 0.08 (Spruce.cover) p(Method + Veg.less2m +

Method:Veg.less2m)

7 446.27 2.19 0.07

(Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(Method + Veg.less2m) 7 446.31 2.24 0.07 (Spruce.cover) p(Method + Stand.age) 6 446.53 2.46 0.06 (Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Year + Visit + Method) 10 447.33 3.25 0.04 (Veg.less4m + Veg.great4m) p(Method) 6 447.34 3.26 0.04 (Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(Year + Visit +

Method)

10 447.71 3.63 0.03

(Stand.age + Canopy.diversity) p(Method) 6 447.71 3.64 0.03

*There was no evidence for overdispersion for HETH and MOWA, thus AICc was used for model selection of these species.

Références

Télécharger maintenant ( PDF - 4 Page - 60.19 KB )

Documents relatifs

Appendix 2: Tests results and simulations by SAFIR

Temperatures in the section of the test FRFC 6 with the value of water content in concrete is 6% in weight.. Temperatures in the section of the test FRFC 6 with the value of

Data-driven penalties for model selection

Cross-validation and resampling penalties can also be used for change-point detection, i.e., for detecting changes in the mean of an heteroscedastic sequence (joint work with

Maxisets for model selection

Keywords: approximations spaces, approximation theory, Besov spaces, estimation, maxiset, model selection, rates of convergence.. AMS MOS: 62G05, 62G20,

Maxisets for Model Selection

So, the strategy proposed by Massart outperforms the model selection procedure associated with the nested collection of models of Section 5.1 from the maxiset point of view for

Model selection by resampling penalization

• Resampling penalties with a V -fold subsampling scheme have also been studied in [9, Section 4] on the same simulated data: exchangeable resam- pling schemes always give better

Estimation and Selection for the Latent Block Model on Categorical Data

Section 5 is devoted to numerical experiments on both simulated and real data sets to illustrate the behaviour of the proposed estimation algorithms and model selection criteria..

Comparing Model Selection and Regularization Approaches to Variable Selection in Model-Based Clustering

We found that the two variable selection methods had comparable classification accuracy, but that the model selection approach had substantially better accuracy in selecting

Model selection by resampling penalization

In the case example of least-square regression on histograms, we prove oracle inequalities, and that these algorithms are naturally adaptive to both the smoothness of the