MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Social conflict resolution, life history, and the reconstruction of skew

2009· book-chapter· en· W194183581 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard J. Crespi

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationInferenceEcologyBiologyEvolutionary biologySociologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Models of reproductive skew have provided useful conceptual frameworks for analyzing social conflict and cooperation in groups of reproductively totipotent individuals, in that they specify explicitly how aspects of ecology and genetic relatedness can generate within-group variation in behavior and reproduction. The main outcome of many years of development and application of these models, however, is a growing consensus that transactional models apply to few if any real situations, and that the models cannot be critically evaluated because assembling sufficient quantitative information to allow critical tests of their assumptions and predictions is not feasible. The “top-down” approach of skew modeling, which makes strong yet unsubstantiated assumptions to extract explanations from data, can be contrasted with a “bottom-up” approach, which involves inference of convergences in sets of diverse social, demographic, and life-history traits across highly diverse taxa, and analyses of fine-scale divergences in small sets of traits between conspecific populations and closely related species. The bottom-up approach explicitly recognizes that each population and taxon exhibits a constellation of more or less similar evolutionarily interrelated traits, especially those that affect (1) the ecological circumstances that underly benefits of dividing labor, (2) the opportunities, costs, and benefits of using force (taking control of behavior away), coercion (cost imposition or repression), or persuasion (providing benefits) to modify the expression of conflicts of interest, and (3) the life-history trade-offs and feedbacks that coevolve with social adaptations. I illustrate this approach with examples of social convergences among insects, birds, and mammals (including humans, Homo sapiens ) that yield insights into selective pressures, and present a model based on such convergences for the role of cooperative breeding in the origin and expansion of modern humans.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.118 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→