Comparing dominance hierarchy methods using a data-splitting approach with real-world data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The development of numerical methods for inferring social ranks has resulted in an overwhelming array of options to choose from. Previous work has established the validity of these methods through the use of simulated datasets, by determining whether a given ranking method can accurately reproduce the dominance hierarchy known to exist in the data. Here, we offer a complementary approach that assesses the reliability of calculated dominance hierarchies by asking whether the calculated rank order produced by a given method accurately predicts the outcome of a subsequent contest between two opponents. Our method uses a data-splitting “training–testing” approach, and we demonstrate its application to real-world data from wild vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus) collected over 3 years. We assessed the reliability of seven methods plus six analytical variants. In our study system, all 13 methods tested performed well at predicting future aggressive outcomes, despite some differences in the inferred rank order produced. When we split the dataset with a 6-month training period and a variable testing dataset, all methods predicted aggressive outcomes correctly for the subsequent 10 months. Beyond this 10-month cut-off, the reliability of predictions decreased, reflecting shifts in the demographic composition of the group. We also demonstrate how a data-splitting approach provides researchers not only with a means of determining the most reliable method for their dataset but also allows them to assess how rank reliability changes among age–sex classes in a social group, and so tailor their choice of method to the specific attributes of their study system.
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 | 0.048 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".