Interspecific aggression and behavioural dominance among four sympatric species of shrews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Level of interspecific aggression should reflect intensity of interference competition, and large dominant and small subordinate species should develop aggressive and passive agonistic behaviours, respectively, to achieve stable coexistence. We tested these ideas, investigating interspecific behavioural dominance in a four-species community of shrews varying in body size (Sorex minutus L., 1766; Sorex araneus L., 1758; Neomys anomalus Cabrera, 1907; Neomys fodiens (Pennant, 1771)) by placing interspecific pairs in a neutral field. The order of dominance (determined on the basis of duration of offensive and defensive behaviours, total time spent in the shelter, and a "final shelter resident" index) corresponded to the order of body size: N. fodiens > N. anomalus > S. araneus > S. minutus. The highest number of conflicts and the least pronounced dominance of N. anomalus over S. araneus suggest that the interference competition was strongest between these species. The different social organization of N. anomalus (tolerant and gregarious versus intolerant and solitary in the other three species) did not decrease its aggressiveness and dominance rank. The larger Neomys species were more aggressive and initiated relatively more offensive behaviours, whereas the smaller Sorex species initiated more defensive behaviours. The presence of food and shelter did not intensify conflicts. Nevertheless, dominant species restricted the access of subordinate species to the shelter.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".