Female northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) that roost together are related
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selection for cooperation, including nepotism, acts on individuals and so quantifying the genetic relationships between individuals that interact often is fundamental to understanding the evolution of sociality. Compared with stable kin groups, relatively little is known about the genetic relationships within groups with fission–fusion dynamics, and in particular between pairs that form long-term relationships. We examined the genetic relationships among female northern myotis, Myotis septentrionalis, that roost in maternity colonies consisting of multiple social groups, within which pairs form long-term relationships (i.e., familiar pairs). Using microsatellites and mitochondrial DNA, we found that females within colonies were not more closely related to one another than they were to females in neighboring colonies at the nuclear level, but they were at the maternal level. Females within social groups were more closely related than expected by chance at the nuclear but not at the maternal level. Furthermore, a comparison of pairwise associations and pairwise relatedness revealed that familiar pairs were more closely related than expected by chance at both the nuclear and maternal level. Kin selection may, therefore, play a role in shaping relationships within groups with fission–fusion dynamics.
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".