Space Use and Leadership Modify Dilution Effects on Optimal Vigilance under Food-Safety Trade-Offs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dilution of predation risk within groups allows individuals to be less vigilant and forage more while still facing lower risk than if they were alone. How group size influences vigilance when individuals can also adjust their space use and whether this relationship differs among individuals contributing differently to space use decisions remain unknown. We present a model-based study of how dilution affects the optimal antipredator behavior of group members in groups where all individuals determine their vigilance level while group leaders also determine space use. We showed that optimal vigilance did not always decrease with group size, as it was sometimes favorable for individuals in larger groups to use riskier patches while remaining vigilant. Followers were also generally less vigilant than leaders. Indeed, followers needed to acquire more resources than leaders, as only the latter could decide when to go to richer patches. Followers still benefit from dilution of predation risk compared with solitary individuals. For leaders, keeping their leadership status can be more important than incorporating new group members to increase dilution. We demonstrate that risk dilution impacts both optimal vigilance and space use, with fitness reward being tied to a member's ability to influence group space use.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".