Inferring individual rules from collective behavior
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social organisms form striking aggregation patterns, displaying cohesion, polarization, and collective intelligence. Determining how they do so in nature is challenging; a plethora of simulation studies displaying life-like swarm behavior lack rigorous comparison with actual data because collecting field data of sufficient quality has been a bottleneck. Here, we bridge this gap by gathering and analyzing a high-quality dataset of flocking surf scoters, forming well-spaced groups of hundreds of individuals on the water surface. By reconstructing each individual's position, velocity, and trajectory, we generate spatial and angular neighbor-distribution plots, revealing distinct concentric structure in positioning, a preference for neighbors directly in front, and strong alignment with neighbors on each side. We fit data to zonal interaction models and characterize which individual interaction forces suffice to explain observed spatial patterns. Results point to strong short-range repulsion, intermediate-range alignment, and longer-range attraction (with circular zones), as well as a weak but significant frontal-sector interaction with one neighbor. A best-fit model with such interactions accounts well for observed group structure, whereas absence or alteration in any one of these rules fails to do so. We find that important features of observed flocking surf scoters can be accounted for by zonal models with specific, well-defined rules of interaction.
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.
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 it