MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6903134057 · doi:10.7939/r3-98d2-3g50

Mathematical methods for exploring the cognitive drivers of animal movement

2023· dissertation· en· W6903134057 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiffusion and Search Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariation (astronomy)Leverage (statistics)Resource (disambiguation)CognitionMovement (music)Cognitive mapSpatial learningAnimal learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spatial distributions of animals have fascinated scientists for centuries. Understanding where animals go and why helps ecologists conserve their populations. Technological advances during the 21st century have allowed scientists to record the spatial location of animals over time, motivating the development of models that explain these patterns. Animals use external factors, such as qualities of their environments, and internal processes, such as memory, when deciding where to move. Interest in models that relate these internal processes to movement has increased in the last decade. In this thesis, I expand on existing work to model how perception, memory, and learning affects the way animals move. The methods described here incorporate different mathematical perspectives with a collective goal of identifying how moving animals account for temporal variation in their environments, predictable or unpredictable. Temporal environmental variation results from many biological processes. When this variation is directly caused by animals themselves (e.g., through resource depletion), these animals navigate away from patches they visited (and depleted) recently. Resources may also vary independently from the animal, and when this variation is predictable, animals may benefit from learning schedules of resource availability. Chapter 2 describes a model that uses animal tracking data to identify patch revisitation patterns. The model’s ability to quantify these patterns was verified on simulated data before being fit to brown bear (Ursus arctos) data from the Canadian Arctic. These bears live in an environment where food resources vary seasonally, and the model suggested that they use spatiotemporal memory to leverage these predictable patterns. Using advanced model-fitting techniques to obtain maximum likelihood estimates and confidence intervals, the model suggested that brown bears wait approximately one year before navigating to resource-rich patches they visited previously. When temporal variation in an animal’s environment is not so predictable, animals must learn and adjust their foraging behaviour to survive. Psychologists and ecologists have theorized that animal learning resembles Bayesian inference, suggesting that animals refine their prior knowledge by incorporating the outcome of subsequent experiences (data). Chapter 4 incorporates this theory into a mechanistic model that simulates how animals learn, using Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling to model how animals optimize a task with a quantifiable outcome. Using a mechanistic model that simulates the movement of spatially informed foragers within a home range, we apply this framework to predict how animals may learn to adjust to rapid and unpredictable changes in their environments. At larger spatial scales, predictable temporal variation in the environment may give rise to migratory behaviour. Chapter 5 presents a model that can statistically identify the beginning and end of migration from animal tracking data. This model can be used to partition animal location data into biologically reasonable behavioural segments for further analysis. Movement ecologists have used statistical models to identify important biological patterns from data, and mechanistic models can incorporate causal links to make important predictions about how animals may move in the future. The work presented in this thesis advances movement ecology by introducing statistical and mechanistic tools that describe how cognitive processes inform animal foraging patterns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicDiffusion and Search DynamicsFrench-language works237,207