Understanding Temporal Social Dynamics in Zoo Animal Management: An Elephant Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zoo animal management procedures which lead to changes to social groups can cause disruption in social hierarchies and the temporary breakdown of social relationships. Animals have different roles in social networks. Understanding individual positions in social networks is important for effective management and ensuring positive welfare for all animals. Using elephants as a case study, the aim of this research was to investigate temporal social dynamics in zoo animals. Behavioural data were collected between January 2016 and February 2017 from 10 African and 22 Asian elephants housed at seven zoos and safari parks in the UK and Ireland. Social interactions were defined as positive physical, positive non-physical, negative physical or negative non-physical. Social network analysis explored social relationships including the fluidity of networks over time and dyadic reciprocity. Social interaction networks were found to be fluid but did not follow a seasonal pattern. Positive interaction networks tended to include the entire social group whereas negative interactions were restricted to specific individuals. Unbalanced ties were observed within dyads, suggesting potential inequalities in relationships. This could impact on individual experiences and welfare. This research highlights subtle temporal dynamics in zoo elephants with the potential for species-level differences. Similar temporal dynamics may also be present in other socially housed zoo species. This research thus provides evidence for the importance of understanding the social networks of zoo animals over longer periods of time. Understanding social networks enables pro-active and evidence-based management approaches. Further research should seek to identify the minimum sampling efforts for social networks in a range of species, to enable the implementation of regular monitoring of social networks and thus improve the welfare of social species under human care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".