Variable social organization is ubiquitous in Artiodactyla and probably evolved from pair-living ancestors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies to understand the evolution ofinterspecific variation in mammalian social organization (SO; composition of social units) produced inconsistent results, possibly by ignoringintraspecific variation. Here we present systematic data on SO in artiodactyl populations, coding SO as solitary, pair-living, group-living, sex-specific or variable (different kinds of SOs in the same population). We found that 62% of 245 populations and 83% of species (83/100) exhibited variable SO. Using Bayesian phylogenetic mixed-effects models, we simultaneously tested whether research effort, habitat, sexual dimorphism, breeding seasonality or body size predicted the likelihood of different SOs and inferred the ancestral SO. Body size and sexual dimorphism were strongly associated with different SOs. Contingent on the small body size (737 g) and putative sexual monomorphism of the earliest fossil artiodactyl, the ancestral SO was most likely to be pair-living (probability = 0.76, 95% CI = 0–1), followed by variable (p= 0.19, 95% CI = 0–0.99). However, at body size values typical of extant species, variable SO becomes the dominant form (p= 0.74, 95% CI = 0.18–1.00). Distinguishing different kinds of ‘variable’ highlights transitions from SOs involving pair-living to SOs involving solitary and/or group-living with increasing body size and dimorphism. Our results support the assumption that ancestral artiodactyl was pair-living and highlight the ubiquity of intraspecific variation in SO.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".