MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943014158 · doi:10.1186/s13661-019-1147-7

Biological invasion in a predator–prey model with a free boundary

2019· article· en· W2943014158 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBoundary Value Problems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersGuangzhou UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPredatorPredationBoundary (topology)Apex predatorMathematicsPopulationOrdinary differential equationMeasure (data warehouse)EcologyInterval (graph theory)Geodetic datumApplied mathematicsBiologyMathematical analysisGeographyDifferential equationComputer scienceGeodesyDemographyCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we study a predator–prey system with free boundary in a one-dimensional environment. The predator v is the invader which exists initially in a sub-interval $[0, s_{0}]$ of $[0,L]$ and has the Leslie–Gower terms that measure the loss in the predator population due to rarity of the prey. The prey u (the native species) is initially distributed over the whole region $[0,L]$ . Our primary goal is to understand how the success or failure of the predator’s invasion is affected by the initial datum $v_{0}$ . We derive a spreading–vanishing dichotomy and give sharp criteria for spreading and vanishing in this model.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.230 · 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