No subject

Mon Feb 21 17:26:18 CET 2011

lance of 0.1.  Is that correct?  I just want to be sure that there is no we=
ighting of absence records (e.g. weighting to simulate a prevalence of 0.5)=
.

Thank you,
Brenna

--_000_764F8BF814B1364698593EF01B2885552BD24FSN2PRD0102MB103pr_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html dir=3D"ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<style id=3D"owaParaStyle" type=3D"text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:=
0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi=3D"0" fpstyle=3D"1">
<div style=3D"direction: ltr;font-family: Helvetica;color: #000000;font-siz=
e: 10pt;">
Hello,<br>
<br>
I see in the &quot;Presentation Manual for BIOMOD&quot; (page 18) the follo=
wing statement: &quot;In all procedures, BIOMOD ensures that the prevalence=
 of the original data is conserved in the calibration and evaluation datase=
ts.&quot;<br>
<br>
I have 304 presence records and am running my pseudoabsence pulls with 3040=
 absences (a prevalence of 0.1).&nbsp; The number of pixels in my study are=
a is 6808.<br>
<br>