Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36278600›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2022

A Hypothetical Modelling and Experimental Design for Measuring Foraging Strategies of Animals.

Ray-Ming Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ray-Ming ChenSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, Baise University, Baise 533000, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4551-2563

Funding

the Humanities and Social Science Research Planning Fund Project under the Ministry of Education of China 20XJAGAT001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Based on animal long-term and short-term memory radial foraging techniques (or LMRFT and SMRFT), we devise a modelling approach that could capture the foraging behaviours of animals. In this modelling, LMRFT-based optimal foraging paths and SMRFT-based ones are constructed with respect to different levels of foraging strategies. Then, by a devised structural metric, we calculate the structural distance between these modelled optimal paths and the hypothetical real foraging paths taken by agents. We sample 20 foods positions via a chosen bivariate normal distribution for three agents. Then, we calculate their Euclidean distance matrix and their ranked matrix. Using LMRFT-based or SMRFT-based optimal foraging strategies, the optimal foraging paths are created. Then, foraging strategies are identified using optimal parameter learning techniques. Our results, based on the simulated foraging data, show that LMRFT-based foraging strategies for agent 1,2 and 3 are 3, 2 and 5, i.e., agent 3 is the most intelligent one among the three in terms of radial level. However, from the SMRFT-based perspective of strategies, their optimal foraging strategies are 5,5 and 2, respectively, i.e., agent 1 is as intelligent as agent 2 and both of them have better SMRFT-based foraging strategies than agent 3.

Indexed as

density-driven forageexperimental designforaging radial levelLMRFT-based and SMRFT-based cognitionstructural metric

Identifiers

PMID36278600
PMCPMC9624359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.