Apparent power-law distributions in animal movements can arise from intraspecific interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lévy flights have gained prominence for analysis of animal movement. In a Lévy flight, step-lengths are drawn from a heavy-tailed distribution such as a power law (PL), and a large number of empirical demonstrations have been published. Others, however, have suggested that animal movement is ill fit by PL distributions or contend a state-switching process better explains apparent Lévy flight movement patterns. We used a mix of direct behavioural observations and GPS tracking to understand step-length patterns in females of two related butterflies. We initially found movement in one species (Euphydryas editha taylori) was best fit by a bounded PL, evidence of a Lévy flight, while the other (Euphydryas phaeton) was best fit by an exponential distribution. Subsequent analyses introduced additional candidate models and used behavioural observations to sort steps based on intraspecific interactions (interactions were rare in E. phaeton but common in E. e. taylori). These analyses showed a mixed-exponential is favoured over the bounded PL for E. e. taylori and that when step-lengths were sorted into states based on the influence of harassing conspecific males, both states were best fit by simple exponential distributions. The direct behavioural observations allowed us to infer the underlying behavioural mechanism is a state-switching process driven by intraspecific interactions rather than a Lévy flight.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".