MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981293165

An investigation into social relationships and social structure in UK and Irish zoo elephant herds

2019· dissertation· en· W2981293165 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrent UniversityNottingham Trent University
KeywordsWelfareSocial groomingAggressionAnimal welfareDemographyPsychologySocial psychologyBiologyEcologySociologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Appropriate social groups in zoo-housed animals can enhance welfare, longevity, health status and reproductive success of individuals, and consequently zoo populations. However, inappropriate social groups can be detrimental to individual welfare states. Suboptimal social housing in zoo animals has been linked with increased prevalence of stereotypies, increased aggression and reduced reproductive success. In the wild, elephants predominantly live in herds of related individuals and have a fission-fusion social group structure (i.e. group size and structure fluctuates over time). Concerns have been made over whether elephants in zoos can be kept in appropriate social groups which meet their complex needs. Social interactions have been identified as an indicator of positive welfare in zoo elephants. The aim of this thesis was to ascertain the effect of individual and zoo-level factors including individual personality on herd interactions and social structure, and to gauge the level of change in herd dynamics over a year. Behavioural data were collected over 12 months for each study zoo (January 2016 – February 2017). Subjects were 10 African (1 male: 9 female) and 22 Asian (3 male: 19 female) elephants housed at 7 zoos and safari parks in the UK and Ireland. Methods employed combined extensive behavioural observations (live and video), social network analysis and keeper questionnaires to quantify data on social interactions and personality.
\n 
\nSocial interactions were considered to be either positive (e.g. touching with the trunk or walking towards another individual) or negative (e.g. hitting with the trunk or displacement) and were further sub-divided into physical and non-physical interactions. Key demographic factors that could affect social interactions and relationships in zoo elephants, and therefore contributing to cohesive, successful social groups were identified. The results provided evidence for complex herd structures which may not be static over time. Personality was reliably rated by elephant keepers. A sociable personality component was identified from the personality assessment. Level of sociability of elephants as rated by keepers was related positively to frequency of positive interactions given and negatively to frequency of negative interactions given. Interactions in the study herds and within dyads were affected by age, relatedness to others, species, the presence of calves in the group and individual personality. Calves were central to social interactions in many of the herds, interacting with all members of the group and engaging in more physical interactions than older elephants.
\n 
\nThe presence of positive social interactions and absence of extreme aggression in the study herds is indicative of current successful social group management of elephants in UK and Irish zoos. This research has identified factors that may contribute to successful social housing of zoo elephants. Based on the results, recommendations for changes to practice and areas for future research are made that will continue to advance knowledge and enhance long-term zoo elephant welfare. Of utmost importance is developing a means of assessing social compatibility between individuals, to facilitate such a measure in long-term welfare assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.254 · 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