Experimental tests of spatial association and kinship in monogamous mice (<i>Mus spicilegus</i>) and polygynous mice (<i>Mus musculus domesticus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mound-building mouse (Mus spicilegus) and house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus) are closely related species that exhibit putative characteristics of social monogamy and mate-defense polygyny, respectively. Social behaviours and group composition in these species have been well studied in the laboratory under controlled conditions, and the purpose of our study was to examine conclusions drawn from laboratory data in less constrained seminatural enclosures. Specifically, we examined spatial associations and disassociations, which we used as indices of attraction and avoidance, respectively, in both species of mice. In each enclosure and for each species, we introduced small treatment groups of either 2 or 3 female kin (sisters) or 2 or 3 unrelated females, along with an equal number of unrelated males. Initial group composition and physical environments in our enclosures were similar for the two species, therefore we preformed a modified "common garden" experiment. We expected genetically based behavioural differences between species to be revealed. Mound-building mice exhibited strong spatial associations of malefemale pairs, and also exhibited spatial avoidance of some of the other mice. House mice exhibited strong female groups of close kin that were significantly associated in space, but this species showed little spatial avoidance compared with mound-building mice. Our results support the idea of social monogamy in mound-building mice, where close reproductive associations of a paired male and female have been hypothesized from laboratory data. Our results also support more extensive evidence suggesting mate-defense polygyny in house mice.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".