Sexual and aggressive play fighting of sibling Richardson’s ground squirrels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Play fighting in many species of squirrels can involve sexual play and aggressive play, both of which can lead to wrestling which appears superficially similar. Such convergence can make scoring of the relative frequencies of these two types of play difficult and can lead to the mistaken conclusion that they grade into one another. In this study, both staged laboratory encounters between sibling pairs and spontaneous encounters between siblings in free‐living litters of Richardson’s ground squirrels (Spermophilus richardsonii) were videotaped. Frame‐by‐frame analyses using the Eshkol‐Wachman Movement Notation were employed to record the correlated movements of attack and defense by the partners and to reveal the body areas targeted during each play bout. Whereas sexual play was organized around access to the rump, aggressive play was organized around the shoulders. Although in most cases the defender’s tactics blocked access to the respective target, when contact did occur, it involved mounting in sexual play and nosing or biting in aggressive play. Eighty‐six percent of play fights could be unambiguously categorized as either sexual or aggressive play. Of these, the majority (˜80%) involved sexual play. The sex of the participants did not affect the frequency of aggressive play, but in sexual play, males initiated more attacks than females. Once initiated, each form of play fighting remained distinct—if a bout began as sexual play, it would end as sexual play. Furthermore, a counterattack following sexual play was significantly more likely to be sexual than aggressive, and vice versa for counterattacks following aggressive play. Therefore, all the evidence suggested that the two forms of play fighting were not intermixed in Richardson’s ground squirrels. Aggr. Behav. 27:323–337, 2001. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".