MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2271744073 · doi:10.1086/681638

Optimal Forager against Ideal Free Distributed Prey

2015· article· en· W2271744073 on OpenAlexaff
József Garay, Ross Cressman, Fei Xu, Zoltán Varga, Tomás Cabello García

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeal free distributionPredationForagingOptimal foraging theoryBiological dispersalEcologyStatistical physicsMathematical optimizationMathematicsBiologyPhysicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The introduced dispersal-foraging game is a combination of prey habitat selection between two patch types and optimal-foraging approaches. Prey's patch preference and forager behavior determine the prey's survival rate. The forager's energy gain depends on local prey density in both types of exhaustible patches and on leaving time. We introduce two game-solution concepts. The static solution combines the ideal free distribution of the prey with optimal-foraging theory. The dynamical solution is given by a game dynamics describing the behavioral changes of prey and forager. We show (1) that each stable equilibrium dynamical solution is always a static solution, but not conversely; (2) that at an equilibrium dynamical solution, the forager can stabilize prey mixed patch use strategy in cases where ideal free distribution theory predicts that prey will use only one patch type; and (3) that when the equilibrium dynamical solution is unstable at fixed prey density, stable behavior cycles occur where neither forager nor prey keep a fixed behavior.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology ModelsFrench-language works237,207