A Specter of Coexistence: Is Centrifugal Community Organization Haunted by the Ghost of Competition?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a centrifugally organized community species prefer the same habitat (called “core”) but differ in their secondary habitat preferences. The first model of centrifugal community organization (CCO) predicted that optimally foraging, symmetrically competing species would share use of the core habitat at all density combinations. But one might also assume that the competition in the core habitat is asymmetrical, that is, that one of the species (the dominant) has a behavioral advantage therein. In this study, we asked how should habitat use evolve in a centrifugally organized community if its species compete asymmetrically in the core habitat? To address this question we developed an “isoleg model”. The model predicts that in a centrifugally organized community, asymmetric competition promotes the use of the core habitat exclusively by the dominant species at most points in the state space. The separation of the core habitat use by the species (“the ghost of competition past”) may be either complete or partial (“partial ghost”), and behavior at the stable competitive equilibrium between the species could determine whether coexistence should occur at the “complete-” or the “partial ghost” regions. This version of CCO should be a common feature of competitive systems.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".