MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970733699 · doi:10.1093/beheco/ark008

Victory displays: a game-theoretic analysis

2006· article· en· W1970733699 on OpenAlexafffund
Mike Mesterton‐Gibbons, Tom N. Sherratt

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Ecology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsVictoryCONTESTDominance (genetics)AdvertisingBiologyPolitical scienceLawPoliticsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two rationales have been proposed verbally for the function of victory displays, which are performed by the winners of contests but not by the losers. The “advertising” rationale is that victory displays are attempts to communicate victory to other members of a social group that do not pay attention to contests or cannot otherwise identify the winner. The “browbeating” rationale is that victory displays are attempts to decrease the probability that the loser of a contest will initiate a future contest with the same individual. We formally explore the logic of these rationales with game-theoretic models. The models show that both rationales are logically sound; however, all other things being equal, the intensity of victory displays will be highest through advertising in groups where the reproductive advantage of dominance is low and highest through browbeating in groups where the reproductive advantage of dominance is high.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral EcologySame topicEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationFrench-language works237,207