MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061456493 · doi:10.1139/z03-159

An uneasy alliance: unequal distribution of affiliative interactions among members of a captive wolf pack

2003· article· en· W2061456493 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Traci Cipponeri, Paul A. Verrell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGray wolfAgonistic behaviourCanisSeasonal breederSocial groupAllianceDemographyReproductionEcologyZoologySocial psychologyPsychologyAggressionGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The social groups of many vertebrates may be characterized as "uneasy alliances" that reflect tensions between benefits of group membership and costs to individual fitness among members, especially nonrelatives. The prebreeding season may be a time when these tensions become most acute and so observable for packs of gray wolves (Canis lupus). We recorded affiliative (play) interactions among two females and five males of known social ranks in a captive pack as the time of breeding approached. Substantial inequalities among pairs of wolves were apparent in frequencies of both the initiation of play and the exhibition of positive responses by recipient wolves. With the subsequent arrival of the breeding season, the pack experienced social disruption that led to the eviction of the original alpha male and a reordering of the ranks of those wolves remaining. Our data suggest that unequal affiliative interactions among pack members can be associated with (and, perhaps, even be predictive of) subsequent social disruption at a time when opportunities for personal reproduction become most available.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicPrimate Behavior and EcologyFrench-language works237,207