Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male animals are far less likely to be bonded in male–male friendships than are female dyads because, at heart, male priority is to mate with females. Males are therefore usually rivals. However, most females only mate when they are in estrus, which never lasts very long, so male friendships may blow hot and cold. For example, adult male blue monkeys ( Cercopithecus mitis ) sometimes groom each other and hang out with particular friends, but this easy companionship exists only when there are no females around. The same is true of patas monkeys ( Erythrocebus patas ). In species in which males and estrus females are present together in a group, males are typically antagonistic or, at best, grudgingly tolerant of each other (Kappeler, 2000). In such groups the biggest, most aggressive males tend to have the most success with females, so males have evolved to be larger than females (Neuhaus and Ruckstuhl, 2002). Male primates may form coalitions to attain power for some end result (for example, combat against another group), but these are ephemeral in nature and do not usually last. Human brothers and male relatives are often close friends but so, too, can they become enemies. About 1800, ruling sultans had a tradition of fratricide, where brothers, nephews, and any other threats to ascendancy were generally imprisoned and killed (Nagel, 2004). This chapter considers friendships among primates (chimpanzees, gorillas, Tibetan macaques, and woolly spider monkeys), horses, lions, cheetahs, wolves, bears, dolphins, and birds (geese, rheas, black swans, Humboldt penguins, and long-tailed manakins).
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.108 | 0.033 |
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".