Behaviourally specific preferred associations in bottlenose dolphins, <i>Tursiops</i> spp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated association patterns of 52 photographically identified, free-ranging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp. Gervais, 1855) across four behavioural states (rest, travel, social, and foraging/feeding) to investigate how behavioural state influences patterns of association. Group composition and behavioural data were extracted from 2178 encounter surveys collected over 3 years. Analyses revealed three general types of association: (1) affiliates, which consistently demonstrate preferred associations across all behavioural states; (2) acquaintances, which never form preferred associations but still associate in at least one behavioural state; and (3) behavioural associates, which form preferred associations in at least one, but not all behavioural states. The majority of associations in Shark Bay, Australia, are acquaintance type (38.2%), with affiliates (5.7%, principally between adult males) and behavioural associates (28.9%, principally between juveniles) being relatively rarer. Permutation tests identified behaviourally specific preferred associations during all behavioural states. Although behaviourally specific preferred associations appear to exist within the Shark Bay social structure, it seems that the social organization and mating system constrain the social relationships for the majority of males and females in differing ways which prevent them from having behavioural associates, leaving juveniles free to associate based on short-term expediency and behavioural specific needs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".