MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2504535423 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511794155.008

Family and group tight bonds

2011· book-chapter· en· W2504535423 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Innis Dagg

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Topics in Algebra
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroup (periodic table)BondPhysicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some species are so social that it is impossible to say that any two or three individuals are closer psychically than any others. The family group is together all the time – togetherness that would drive most people mad. The three species represented here are the elephant, orca, and naked mole-rat. Other species have groups whose closeness depends upon their environment – if the area is densely populated with animals of the same species, then mature youngsters will not be able to start reproducing for themselves, but may stay with their natal family, helping to raise the next year’s young. Examples are wolves, coyotes, beaver, crows, and gibbons. The final five species discussed, woolly spider monkeys, black-handed spider monkeys, lesser kudu, white rhinoceros, and sperm whales, form friendly groups for reasons that require further study. Elephants Are there preferred dyads, triads, foursomes, or any other combination of individuals present in maternal elephant troops? There is no way to tell. A herd of adult female elephants ( Loxodonta africana ) and their young (the males go their separate ways when they reach adolescence) is so tight that infants, nieces, mothers, aunts, grandmothers, and great-grandmothers are never really separated during their entire, long lives. Cynthia Moss, in her book Elephant Memories (1988), which she wrote after researching the social behavior of elephants in Amboseli National Park for 20 years, notes that all females and young live in such family units. Individuals coordinate their activities so that they are doing the same thing at the same time. If they are traveling, wallowing, resting, or standing, they tend to bunch closely together; they are immensely tactile, often touching each other with their trunks, or leaning and rubbing against one another. (What a nightmare this scenario would be for humans who value their independence!) If, during migration, a baby cannot keep up with the others, the adults slow down as they move forward; if an old female is sick or dying, they gather around her as if offering silent sympathy. When members of a herd have been feeding for a few hours somewhat apart, they salute each other fervently when they again join forces, raising their heads, spreading and flapping their ears, tucking in their chins, and rumbling loud and throatily. If herd members have been separated for a few days, their greetings are even more vehement. They may “spin around urinating and defecating and, with their heads and ears high, fill the air with a deafening cacophony of rumbles, trumpets, roars, and screams” (Poole, 1996). The intensity of the ceremony reflects the degree of their attachment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.005

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 head0.232
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 eBooksSame topicAdvanced Topics in AlgebraFrench-language works237,207