Spatial Competition: Roughening of an Experimental Interface
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited dispersal distance generates spatial aggregation. Intraspecific interactions are then concentrated within clusters, and between-species interactions occur near cluster boundaries. Spread of a locally dispersing invader can become motion of an interface between the invading and resident species, and spatial competition will produce variation in the extent of invasive advance along the interface. Kinetic roughening theory offers a framework for quantifying the development of these fluctuations, which may structure the interface as a self-affine fractal, and so induce a series of temporal and spatial scaling relationships. For most clonal plants, advance should become spatially correlated along the interface, and width of the interface (where invader and resident compete directly) should increase as a power function of time. Once roughening equilibrates, interface width and the relative location of the most advanced invader should each scale with interface length. We tested these predictions by letting white clover (Trifolium repens) invade ryegrass (Lolium perenne). The spatial correlation of clover growth developed as anticipated by kinetic roughening theory, and both interface width and the most advanced invader's lead scaled with front length. However, the scaling exponents differed from those predicted by recent simulation studies, likely due to clover's growth morphology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it