MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3045348902 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2012366117

Honey bee colony aggression and indirect genetic effects

2020· letter· en· W3045348902 on OpenAlexaff
Marla B. Sokolowski

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEusocialityHoney beeBiologyAggressionKin selectionSocial evolutionSocial behaviorGeneticsSocial cueDanceSocial relationEvolutionary biologySocial psychologyPsychologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social interaction is like a dance between two or more individuals who communicate with each other by sending and receiving information. Social cues are multisensory, involving combinations of visual, olfactory, auditory, and tactile information. One individual transmits information through its behavior and the other interprets it, providing a behavioral response that contains further social information, and the dance continues. Unlike nonsocial behavior (e.g., a lone worm moving along a temperature gradient), social behavior is complex because the transmitter of the information changes the receiver’s subsequent behavior. From a statistical perspective, like individual behavior, variation in social behavior can be partitioned into its genetic and environmental contributions, and their interactions (1, 2). However, for social behavior, the social environment is a critical part of the equation (3, 4). Social interactions result in indirect genetic effects (IGEs), when the genetics of one individual affects another’s behavior (3, 4). IGEs are important for the evolution of social behavior; however, a mechanistic understanding of IGEs is lacking (5, 6). Which phenotypes should be measured when social interactions are an emergent property of the group? What genes and pathways are involved in IGEs, and are patterns of selection found in their DNA sequences? How can we validate and functionally investigate the role of genetic variants in a group setting? In PNAS, Avalos et al. (7) use genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in the eusocial honey bee to uncover genomic regions defined by colony allele frequencies that influence colony aggressive behavior. Social behavior is exhibited by many organisms, from microbes to humans (8). Factors that affect social interactions include components of the social environment (e.g., density, space, and group social structure) and the physical environment (e.g., temperature and humidity) (9). Social experiences can affect different levels of biological organization (e.g., neural transmission, gene … [↵][1]1Email: marla.sokolowski{at}utoronto.ca. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→