Effects of the social environment on movement-integrated habitat selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Movement links the distribution of habitats with the social environment of animals using those habitats. Despite the links between movement, habitat selection, and socioecology, their integration remains a challenge due to lack of shared vocabulary across fields, methodological gaps, and the implicit (rather than explicit) historical development of theory in the fields of social and spatial ecology. Given these challenges can be addressed, opportunity for further study will provide insight about the links between social, spatial, and movement ecology. Here, our objective was to disentangle the roles of habitat selection and social association as drivers of movement in caribou (Rangifer tarandus). METHODS: To accomplish our objective, we modelled the relationship between collective movement and selection of foraging habitats using socially informed integrated step selection function (iSSF). Using iSSF, we modelled the effect of social processes, i.e., nearest neighbour distance and social preference, and movement behaviour on patterns of habitat selection. RESULTS: By unifying social network analysis with iSSF, we identified movement-dependent social association, where individuals took shorter steps in lichen habitat and foraged in close proximity to more familiar individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that social preference is context-dependent based on habitat selection and foraging behaviour. We therefore surmise that habitat selection and social association are drivers of collective movement, such that movement is the glue between habitat selection and social association. Here, we put these concepts into practice to demonstrate that movement is the glue connecting individual habitat selection to the social environment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".