Fitness trade-offs of group formation and movement by Thomson's gazelles in the Serengeti ecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collective behaviours contributing to patterns of group formation and coordinated movement are common across many ecosystems and taxa. Their ubiquity is presumably due to altering interactions between individuals and their predators, resources and physical environment in ways that enhance individual fitness. On the other hand, fitness costs are also often associated with group formation. Modifications to these interactions have the potential to dramatically impact population-level processes, such as trophic interactions or patterns of space use in relation to abiotic environmental variation. In a wide variety of empirical systems and models, collective behaviour has been shown to enhance access to ephemeral patches of resources, reduce the risk of predation and reduce vulnerability to environmental fluctuation. Evolution of collective behaviour should accordingly depend on the advantages of collective behaviour weighed against the costs experienced at the individual level. As an illustrative case study, we consider the potential trade-offs on Malthusian fitness associated with patterns of group formation and movement by migratory Thomson's gazelles in the Serengeti ecosystem.This article is part of the theme issue 'Collective movement ecology'.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".