Foraging and movement paths of female reindeer: insights from fractal analysis, correlated random walks, and Lévy flights
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
Food-plant and foraging-site selection by semidomesticated female reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus L.) was studied to shed light on the searching and foraging behaviour of this herbivore. The aims of the study were (i) to determine the role of food biomass and (or) plant nitrogen content in feeding-site selection and (ii) to analyse the extent to which movement patterns of reindeer are related to availability of food resources using several models of searching behaviour (fractal analysis, correlated random walks, and Lévy flights). The study was conducted in summer 1999 in a mountainous area of northern Sweden. Reindeer selected different plant communities during this period and changed search pattern in late summer. We found that reindeer selected feeding sites with higher green biomass of Betula spp. and Salix spp. However, there was no sharp threshold for foraging as suggested by some models. Contrary to qualitative predictions of optimal-foraging theory, we found no selection of feeding sites on the basis of the nitrogen content of food. The changed search pattern in late summer and the discrepancy between reindeer foraging paths and a correlated random walk model suggests that reindeer were responding to their environment by changing their searching behaviour.
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