An individual-based movement model for contacts between mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contacts between individuals are key for the spread of infectious disease. Although essential to understanding disease spread, contact rates are difficult to predict, based simply on population demographics in wildlife populations, because contact rates depend upon environmental features as well as the nature of social interactions within and between groups of individuals. We developed a detailed, behaviorally structured, individual-based model (IBM) in Netlogo to simulate contacts between- and within-groups of individual mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), a species particularly susceptible to chronic wasting disease. The model tracks contacts (defined as two individuals coming within five meters of one another), recorded as between- or within-group depending on the social group membership of the two individuals (dyad). We parameterized the model with data from mule deer with global positioning systems (GPS) collars in east-central Alberta, Canada. Individuals move according to habitat preferences, home range attraction, and grouping behaviours. Animals were tracked at two-hour time steps and were modelled as selecting locations relative to preferred resources based on sex-specific integrated step-selection functions (iSSFs) with steps biased toward a home range centroid. Total within-group contacts increased with group size and were sensitive to changes in movement cohesion of the group and movement persistence, particularly movement cohesion. Total between-group contacts were sensitive only to the number of groups. We compared model predictions for where the locations of deer contacts occurred against an existing statistical model for the relative contact probabilities (RCP) on the same landscape (Dobbin et al. 2023). Predicted locations of deer contacts generally were consistent with higher predicted RCP values. When disease transmission is a function of contact rate, the model can be used to assess the interaction between model components (e.g., movement rates, grouping rules, home ranges, animal densities) and the spatial distribution of key natural and artificial resources that may attract deer and potentially increase disease spread.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".