Innovation in groups: does the proximity of others facilitate or inhibit performance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Foraging innovation, in which an individual eats a novel food or uses a novel foraging technique, has been observed in a wide range of species. If other individuals are nearby, they may adopt the innovation, thus spreading it through the population. Much research has focused on this social transmission of behaviour, but the effect of social context on the emergence of novel behaviour is unclear. Here, we examine the effect of social context on innovative feeding behaviour in the Carib grackle (Quiscalus lugubris), an opportunistic, gregarious bird. We test the effect of the proximity of conspecifics, while eliminating the direct effects of interference, scrounging, or aggression. Using a repeated-measures design, we found that birds took significantly longer to contact novel foraging tasks when in the presence of others vs. alone, and during playbacks of alarm calls vs. a control sound. Further, performance of a food-processing behaviour decreased when birds were with others, and individuals adjusted their behaviour depending on their distance from conspecifics. Our results suggest that feeding in groups may slow down or inhibit innovative foraging behaviour in this species. We discuss the implications of a trade-off between feeding in groups and taking advantage of new feeding opportunities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".