Bibliographic record
Abstract
Provisioners capture items both for delivery and for self-feeding. In doing so, they may travel directly to and from a single location, visit several patches on each excursion from a delivery point, or alternate excursions to different destinations. Prey suitable for self-feeding versus delivery have differing attributes, which means that they are often best sought in different places. Visiting separate patches to self-feed and to load prey for delivery requires more travel time than foraging for both types of prey at a single location, but both self-feeding and loading are faster if carried out in the most suitable patches. Here, we investigate how the distribution of different types of food resources around a central delivery point affects the routine with which a provisioner visits patches to forage. Our results show that each of several basic travel routines is best in some broad region of a parameter space that considers the loading time saved in relation to the extra travel time required. This framework provides a simple explanation for the variety of routines observed in nature and can additionally account for the circumstances under which provisioners concentrate loads for delivery by internal processing, known in some seabirds.
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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".