MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166941999 · doi:10.1890/10-1182.1

Overturning conclusions of Lévy flight movement patterns by fishing boats and foraging animals

2011· article· en· W2166941999 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiffusion and Search Dynamics
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLévy flightAkaike information criterionForagingRange (aeronautics)Power lawPareto distributionPareto principleEcologyEconometricsStatisticsStatistical physicsMathematicsRandom walkBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A surprisingly diverse variety of foragers have previously been concluded to exhibit movement patterns known as Lévy flights, a special type of random walk. These foragers range in size from microzooplankton in experiments to fishermen in the Pacific Ocean and the North Sea. The Lévy flight conclusion implies that all the foragers have similar scale-free movement patterns that can be described by a single dimensionless parameter, the exponent micro of a power-law (Pareto) distribution. However, the previous conclusions have been made using methods that have since been shown to be problematic: inaccurate techniques were used to estimate micro, and the power-law distribution was usually assumed to hold without testing any alternative hypotheses. Therefore, I address the open question of whether the previous data still support the Lévy flight hypothesis, and thus determine whether Lévy flights really are so ubiquitous in ecology. I present a comprehensive reanalysis of 17 data sets from seven previous studies for which Lévy flight behavior had been concluded, covering marine, terrestrial, and experimental systems from four continents. I use the modern likelihood and Akaike weights approach to test whether simple alternative models are more supported by the data than Lévy flights. The previously estimated values of the power-law exponent micro do not match those calculated here using the accurate likelihood approach, and almost all of them lie outside of the likelihood-based 95% confidence intervals. Furthermore, the original power-law Lévy flight model is overwhelmingly rejected for 16 out of the 17 data sets when tested against three other simple models. For one data set, the data are consistent with coming from a bounded power-law distribution (a truncated Lévy flight). For three other data sets, an exponential distribution corresponding to a simple Poisson process is suitable. Thus, Lévy flight movement patterns are not the common phenomena that was once thought, and are not suitable for use as ecosystem indicators for fisheries management, as has been proposed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it