How memory of direct animal interactions can lead to territorial pattern formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanistic home range analysis (MHRA) is a highly effective tool for understanding spacing patterns of animal populations. It has hitherto focused on populations where animals defend their territories by communicating indirectly, e.g. via scent marks. However, many animal populations defend their territories using direct interactions, such as ritualized aggression. To enable application of MHRA to such populations, we construct a model of direct territorial interactions, using linear stability analysis and energy methods to understand when territorial patterns may form. We show that spatial memory of past interactions is vital for pattern formation, as is memory of 'safe' places, where the animal has visited but not suffered recent territorial encounters. Additionally, the spatial range over which animals make decisions to move is key to understanding the size and shape of their resulting territories. Analysis using energy methods, on a simplified version of our system, shows that stability in the nonlinear system corresponds well to predictions of linear analysis. We also uncover a hysteresis in the process of territory formation, so that formation may depend crucially on initial space-use. Our analysis, in one dimension and two dimensions, provides mathematical groundwork required for extending MHRA to situations where territories are defended by direct encounters.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".