Bibliographic record
Abstract
These data were used in a simulation study to examine how honey bees distribute themselves across foraging landscapes. The ideal-free distribution and central-place foraging are important ecological models that can explain the distribution of foraging organisms in their environment. However, this model ignores distance-based foraging costs from a central place (hive, nest), while central-place foraging ignores competition. Different foraging currencies and cooperation between foragers also create different optimal distributions of foragers, but are limited to a simple two-patch model. We present a hybrid model of the ideal-free distribution that uses realistic competitive effects while accounting for distance-based foraging, and test it using honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) foraging in canola fields (Brassica napus L.). Our simulations show that foragers maximizing efficiency (energy profits/losses) prioritize distance to their aggregation more than those maximizing net-rate (energy profits/time), and that social foragers move to more distant patches to maximize group benefits, meaning that social foragers do not approach an ideal-free distribution. Simulated efficiency-maximizers had a hump-shaped relationship of trip times with distance, spending shorter amounts of time in both nearby and far-away patches. Canola fields were far more attractive to simulated foragers than semi-natural areas, suggesting limited foraging on semi-natural lands during the bloom period of canola. Finally, we found that the observed distribution of honey bees in canola fields most closely resembled the optimal distribution of solitary efficiency-maximizers. Our model has both theoretical and practical uses, as it allows us to model central-place forager distributions in complex landscapes as well as providing information on appropriate hive stocking rates for agricultural pollination.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".