Inferring Size-Based Functional Responses From the Physical Properties of the Medium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First derivations of the functional response were mechanistic, but subsequent uses of these functions tended to be phenomenological. Further understanding of the mechanisms underpinning predator-prey relationships might lead to novel insights into functional response in natural systems. Because recent consideration of the physical properties of the environment has improved our understanding of predator-prey interactions, we advocate the use of physics-based approaches for the derivation of the functional response from first principles. These physical factors affect the functional response by constraining the ability of both predators and prey to move according to their size. A physics-based derivation of the functional response should thus consider the movement of organisms in relation to their physical environment. One recent article presents a model along these criteria. As an initial validation of our claim, we use a slightly modified version of this model to derive the classical parameters of the functional response (i.e., attack rate and handling time) of aquatic organisms, as affected by body size, buoyancy, water density and viscosity. We compared the predictions to relevant data. Our model provided good fit for most parameters, but failed to predict handling time. Remarkably, this is the only parameter whose derivation did not rely on physical principles. Parameters in the model were not estimated from observational data. Hence, systematic discrepancies between predictions and real data point immediately to errors in the model. An added benefit to functional response derivation from physical principles is thus to provide easy ways to validate or falsify hypotheses about predator-prey relationships.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".