The Causes of Resource Monopolization: Interaction Between Resource Dispersion and Mode of Competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The degree of monopolization of resources is thought to be higher in groups that compete by interference than by exploitation. However, the monopolization of resources will presumably depend on (1) whether the dispersion of resources is economically defendable, and (2) whether some competitors have the ability to defend these resource distributions and hence capitalize on this potential. We tested for an interaction between the effects of temporal resource dispersion and aggressiveness on the degree of resource monopolization in a foraging system. Two species of fish differing markedly in aggressiveness (high: convict cichlids, Archocentrus nigrofasciatus ; low: goldfish, Carrasius auratus ) were allowed to compete intra‐specifically in groups of four for food that was either potentially defendable (arrived asynchronously) or not (arrived synchronously). As predicted, the monopolization of food, measured as the coefficient of variation of food eaten within groups, was significantly higher in the defendable than in the undefendable treatment for convict cichlids but not for goldfish. However, the monopolization of food was higher in the non‐aggressive goldfish than in the aggressive convict cichlids. Future studies should quantify and compare the monopolization in species that compete primarily via scramble competition to those that use primarily resource defence.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".