A test of non-kin social foraging in the southern flying squirrel (<i>Glaucomys volans</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It can be challenging to understand the evolution of sociality, particularly the occurrence of co-operation by non-kin. Southern flying squirrels (Glaucomys volans) are an interesting example of non-kin co-operation because of the mutual benefits obtained by social thermoregulation during winter. Because group survival confers benefits to the entire group, flying squirrels may also follow an aggregation economy, whereby co-operative foraging during winter is advantageous. However, the extent of such social foraging in flying squirrels is unknown. We tested for social foraging of southern flying squirrels, and also for relatedness among foraging groups. To determine the structure of foraging groups, we set up and remotely monitored feeding stations and nest cavities. All squirrels at the study site were tagged with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags and nests and feeding stations were monitored with automated PIT-tag recorders for a 24-month period. Squirrels were found most often foraging alone. Squirrels that were recorded foraging together comprised unrelated individuals that were also found to share nest cavities. Squirrels were also recorded travelling farther distances between nest cavity and feeding station in the winter season than in the summer season, suggesting that, during winter, squirrels trade-off proximity to food caches for membership in a nest group. Our data suggest that squirrels forage and cache alone in their summer home range and make solitary returns to this summer range to collect their cache during the winter months, despite exhibiting social winter nesting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".