Integrating the Roles of Information and Competitive Ability on the Spatial Distribution of Social Foragers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding and predicting the spatial distribution of social foragers among patchily distributed resources is a problem that has been addressed with numerous approaches over the 30 yr since the ideal free distribution (IFD) was first introduced. The two main approaches involve perceptual constraints and unequal competitors. Here we present a model of social foragers choosing among resource patches. Each forager makes a probabilistic choice on the basis of the information acquired through past foraging experiences. Food acquisition is determined by the forager's competitive ability. This model predicts that perceptual constraints have a greater influence on the spatial distribution of foragers than unequal competitive abilities but that competitive ability plays an important role in determining an individual's information state and behavior. Better competitors have access to more information; consequently, we find that competitive abilities and perceptual constraints are integrated through the social environment occupied by individual foragers. Relative competitive abilities influence the forager's information state, and the ability to use information determines the resulting spatial distribution.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".