Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One benefit of group foraging is that individual foragers can join the food discoveries of companions and thus increase encounter rate with food patches. When food patches are exhaustible, however, individual shares of each patch will decrease with group size negating the effect of increased encounter rate. Mean feeding rate may actually decrease with group size as a result of aggression or time wasted joining already depleted patches, or when searching to join the food discoveries of others, which is referred to as scrounging, precludes finding food. I examined the relationship between mean feeding rate and group size in captive flocks of zebra finches (Taenopygia guttata) foraging for small clumps of seeds. Finches in groups of two or four fared better than solitary birds in terms of mean feeding rate despite the fact that birds in groups scrounged a large proportion of their food. Solitary birds initiated feeding activity after a longer delay, which led to their lower success. Early departures by food finders from food patches joined by others may have lessened the impact of scrounging on mean feeding rate. As a result of benefits from the presence of companions, group foraging in zebra finches appears a viable alternative to foraging alone despite the cost of sharing resources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".