Reciprocal social ties drive stability within a social network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Social reciprocity is thought to be the most important driver of cooperation among non-kin, but its effects within complex social networks where individuals choose their partners have not been studied. Here, we test whether reciprocation can explain social dynamics in a bird species where males form coalitions to court females, the wire-tailed manakin ( Pipra filicauda ). In our study population, approximately a third of male-male social interactions involve one male leaving his territory to interact and display with the owner of another territory; this directional behaviour provides benefits to the recipient at a cost to the visiting male. We characterize social ties among pairs of territory holders according to the directionality of their interactions, and show here that territory holding males engaged in far more reciprocated (bidirectional) partnerships with other territory holders than expected by chance. Reciprocated partnerships were also stronger (i.e., the partners interacted more frequently) than non-reciprocated partnerships, controlling for spatial proximity of the territories. An individual-level analysis revealed that a male’s social contribution to a given partner was predictive of the number of social interactions he received from that same partner. Finally, we show that reciprocation predicted the long-term stability of social partnerships one year later. Together, these results demonstrate that reciprocity is associated with stability in complex social networks where partner choice is flexible. LAY SUMMARY When animals are free to choose their partners, how does reciprocity influence social dynamics? In the wire-tailed manakin, males form coalitions with other males to help attract mates. We tracked male social networks and found that some males form reciprocal partnerships where each male leaves its territory to display at the other’s territory. These bidirectional partnerships are particularly strong and stable, indicating that reciprocity is associated with stability in complex social networks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".