Information flow through threespine stickleback networks without social transmission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social networks can result in directed social transmission of learned information, thus influencing how innovations spread through populations. Here we presented shoals of threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteous aculeatus) with two identical foraging tasks and applied network-based diffusion analysis (NBDA) to determine whether the order in which individuals in a social group contacted and solved the tasks was affected by the group's network structure. We found strong evidence for a social effect on discovery of the foraging tasks with individuals tending to discover a task sooner when others in their group had previously done so, and with the spread of discovery of the foraging tasks influenced by groups' social networks. However, the same patterns of association did not reliably predict spread of solution to the tasks, suggesting that social interactions affected the time at which the tasks were discovered, but not the latency to its solution following discovery. The present analysis, one of the first applications of NBDA to a natural animal system, illustrates how NBDA can lead to insight into the mechanisms supporting behaviour acquisition that more conventional statistical approaches might miss. Importantly, we provide the first compelling evidence that the spread of novel behaviours can result from social learning in the absence of social transmission, a phenomenon that we refer to as an untransmitted social effect on learning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".