Bibliographic record
Abstract
What conditions foster close friendships between female duos? Certainly, they often flourish where adult females are familiar with each other. Sisters are often especially close (or might sibling rivalry sometimes carry on into adulthood, as it does in some women? Female infant spotted hyena siblings will fight until the death of the weaker if food is limited [Wahaj et al ., 2007]). The relationships of mothers and their adult daughters, who are often best buddies, will be considered in the chapter: Mothers and daughters . Theoretically, social species develop bonds of friendship most strongly between same-sex partners in the sex that does not leave the group when it reaches puberty, thus avoiding the possibility of inbreeding. This makes sense. One would expect that individuals who have known each other for a lifetime will have the strongest potential for friendship. It applies to the much-researched olive baboons where males emigrate at puberty and the females stay in their natal troop, continuing friendships that have been in place since their infancy. It is also generally true for chimpanzees where males are more likely to be affiliated with other males than females with females; in this species as in gorillas, most (but not all) females transfer from their natal group into a new one during adolescence. At Gombe, Tanzania, once in their new troop as adults, female chimpanzees spent relatively little time together with the exception of the few special friends that interest us here (Goodall, 1986). But this theory is decidedly not true for bonobos. In this species, females emigrate at puberty, but when they join another group they form a remarkably strong gregarious sisterhood with their new female friends.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.006 |
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".