Socially informed random walks: incorporating group dynamics into models of population spread and growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simple correlated random walk (CRW) models are rarely sufficient to describe movement of animals over more than the shortest time scales. However, CRW approaches can be used to model more complex animal movement trajectories by assuming individuals move in one of several different behavioural or movement states, each characterized by a different CRW. The spatial and social context an individual experiences may influence the proportion of time spent in different movement states, with subsequent effects on its spatial distribution, survival and fecundity. While methods to study habitat influences on animal movement have been previously developed, social influences have been largely neglected. Here, we fit a 'socially informed' movement model to data from a population of over 100 elk (Cervus canadensis) reintroduced into a new environment, radio-collared and subsequently tracked over a 4-year period. The analysis shows how elk move further when they are solitary than when they are grouped and incur a higher rate of mortality the further they move away from the release area. We use the model to show how the spatial distribution and growth rate of the population depend on the balance of fission and fusion processes governing the group structure of the population. The results are briefly discussed with respect to the design of species reintroduction programmes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".