Kin selection in Columbian ground squirrels ( <i>Urocitellus columbianus</i> ): littermate kin provide individual fitness benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since W. D. Hamilton's seminal work on the evolution of sociality, a large body of research has accumulated on how kin selection might explain the evolution of cooperation in many group-living species. Our study examined the evolutionary basis of philopatry and cooperation; specifically, whether individuals benefit from the presence of close kin. We applied an individual fitness approach to a 16-year study of Columbian ground squirrels (Urocitellus columbianus) to investigate potential causal paths by which the presence of kin might act on individual fitness. Our results indicate that individual fitness benefits resulted from associations of philopatric female kin, and support the hypothesis that increased tolerance of proximity of kin is a proximate mechanism for these benefits. The major life-history influence of kin on individual fitness was through improved reproductive success, and this benefit may have been owing to philopatric settlement of kin that were recognized through familiarization in the natal burrow. Thus, we demonstrated an evolutionary basis necessary for ongoing kin-selected cooperation in Columbian ground squirrels, though the mechanism of familiarity may determine which kin individuals benefit from cooperative behaviours.
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".