You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Great idea; I'll use it and advocate for using the list. I would suggest adding an item to specify the type of response of the model. As written, the checklist seems to assume binary responses (presence-absence or presence-background). Item (A3) "Basis of records" somewhat addresses this, but not directly. Options include: presence/absence, presence/background, presence/pseudoabsence (background sites chosen in a such a manner it's assumed they do not fall on a presence site), abundance, detection/non-detection, abundance index, proportion (e.g., from pollen cores), "other", and mixed (i.e., more than one of any of these).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
great points, thanks for the feedback. Xiao - should we add a third level, such that A3.1 could be 'response type'? I can see some more use cases for that in other elements too...
Great idea; I'll use it and advocate for using the list. I would suggest adding an item to specify the type of response of the model. As written, the checklist seems to assume binary responses (presence-absence or presence-background). Item (A3) "Basis of records" somewhat addresses this, but not directly. Options include: presence/absence, presence/background, presence/pseudoabsence (background sites chosen in a such a manner it's assumed they do not fall on a presence site), abundance, detection/non-detection, abundance index, proportion (e.g., from pollen cores), "other", and mixed (i.e., more than one of any of these).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: