4.7 Article

A practical guide to selecting models for exploration, inference, and prediction in ecology

期刊

ECOLOGY
卷 102, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ecy.3336

关键词

model selection; prediction; validation; variable selection

类别

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [DEB-1353078, DEB-1933561, DEB-1353039, DEB-1933497]
  2. National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [U01GM110744]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Selecting among competing statistical models is a core challenge in science. Specifying the purpose of the analysis as data exploration, inference, or prediction can help in identifying an appropriate model selection procedure. Different modeling goals lead to different models selected for different purposes, even with exactly the same data set.
Selecting among competing statistical models is a core challenge in science. However, the many possible approaches and techniques for model selection, and the conflicting recommendations for their use, can be confusing. We contend that much confusion surrounding statistical model selection results from failing to first clearly specify the purpose of the analysis. We argue that there are three distinct goals for statistical modeling in ecology: data exploration, inference, and prediction. Once the modeling goal is clearly articulated, an appropriate model selection procedure is easier to identify. We review model selection approaches and highlight their strengths and weaknesses relative to each of the three modeling goals. We then present examples of modeling for exploration, inference, and prediction using a time series of butterfly population counts. These show how a model selection approach flows naturally from the modeling goal, leading to different models selected for different purposes, even with exactly the same data set. This review illustrates best practices for ecologists and should serve as a reminder that statistical recipes cannot substitute for critical thinking or for the use of independent data to test hypotheses and validate predictions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据