Who Cares? Between-group variation in alloparental caregiving in sperm whales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the details of the various systems of allocare in primates, rodents, and carnivores have been well described, little is known about the existence of alloparental care in cetaceans. It is believed that the matrilineal social organization of the sperm whale functions to provide vigilant allomothers for calves at the surface while mothers make deep dives for food. Sperm whale females do have a system of allocare, but details are unknown. This study aimed to elucidate sperm whale allocare, in particular: who escorts whose calf and whether or not calves suckle from nonparent females. Using photo identification and behavioral calf follows, we examined patterns of adult–infant interactions for 23 sperm whale calves in the Sargasso and Caribbean Seas. Although multiple individuals of both sexes escorted the calves, the system of escorting differed between the 2 sites. For all calves studied in the Caribbean, we found that 1 female provided most of the allocare but did not nurse the calf, whereas in the Sargasso, multiple females provided care for, and nursed, the young. We discuss differences between populations that may have resulted in the observed differences in these 2 systems of allocare and how these findings fit with current hypotheses on the roles of kin selection and reciprocal altruism in cooperative care in mammals.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".