Relatedness and helping in fish: examining the theoretical predictions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have attempted to explain the evolution of cooperation, yet little attention has been paid to what factors control the amount or kind of cooperation performed. Kin selection theory suggests that more cooperation, or help, should be given by relatives. However, recent theory suggests that under specific ecological and demographic conditions, unrelated individuals must 'pay to stay' in the group and therefore may help more. We tested these contrasting predictions using the cooperatively breeding fish, Neolamprologus pulcher, and found that the degree of work effort by helpers depended on which helping behaviours were considered and on their level of relatedness to the breeding male or female. In the field, helpers unrelated to the breeding male performed more territory defence, while helpers unrelated to the breeding female contributed less to territory defence. In the laboratory, unrelated group members helped more. Our work demonstrates that a number of factors in addition to kinship shape cooperative investment patterns.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it