Building a mechanistic understanding of predation with GPS-based movement data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantifying kill rates and sources of variation in kill rates remains an important challenge in linking predators to their prey. We address current approaches to using global positioning system (GPS)-based movement data for quantifying key predation components of large carnivores. We review approaches to identify kill sites from GPS movement data as a means to estimate kill rates and address advantages of using GPS-based data over past approaches. Despite considerable progress, modelling the probability that a cluster of GPS points is a kill site is no substitute for field visits, but can guide our field efforts. Once kill sites are identified, time spent at a kill site (handling time) and time between kills (killing time) can be determined. We show how statistical models can be used to investigate the influence of factors such as animal characteristics (e.g. age, sex, group size) and landscape features on either handling time or killing efficiency. If we know the prey densities along paths to a kill, we can quantify the 'attack success' parameter in functional response models directly. Problems remain in incorporating the behavioural complexity derived from GPS movement paths into functional response models, particularly in multi-prey systems, but we believe that exploring the details of GPS movement data has put us on the right path.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".