MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2501756965 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511794155.002

Male and female pals ??? not just for sex!

2011· book-chapter· en· W2501756965 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Innis Dagg

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemale sexBiologyZoologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We think of ourselves as a monogamous species, so it seems strange that among our closest relatives, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas, males and females do not form pairs but rather consort with a variety of mating partners. Few primates know who their father is. The most devoted couples among non-human species, instead, are birds of whom over 90 percent are monogamous (Adkins-Regan and Tomaszycki, 2007) – socially monogamous, that is; recent genetic research into the DNA of nestlings proves that many species have males and females who commonly mate with individuals other than their avowed partner. The necessity for social monogamy in birds is related to reproduction, with the laying of eggs by females rather than the production of live young who nurse from their mother. The eggs have to be protected during incubation and the insatiable nestlings fed until they are able to fend for themselves. This requires a huge amount of parental effort, especially for migratory species that have a limited season in which to rear young able to join in the fall southern migration. In long-lived birds especially, this effort can be best organized if the parents work together efficiently. If pairs of a migratory species are bonded, they can breed earlier in the season because they do not have to hunt for and court a partner; their young have more time to grow strong before they must fly south. A seasoned pair has learned how to raise their young effectively; for example, who will take which shift in incubating the eggs and then in foraging for food for the nestlings: “Each pair must work out its own rhythm, which takes some time to perfect and gives the advantage to established couples” (Burger, 2001). Bonded couples are far more likely to raise young successfully than are non-bonded pairs. In social mammals when male and female young are born into the same litter, they tend to bond together as they grow up, constantly in each other’s presence. When they reach puberty, however, members of one sex or the other usually disperse from their natal group; this breaking of the brother–sister bond prevents inbreeding. In human beings, there is no such dispersal. An inborn incest taboo prevents a brother and sister from mating, but often the two remain close friends throughout their lives, which are enriched by this relationship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0930.060

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→