MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288888840 · doi:10.3389/fevo.2022.860885

Naked Mole-Rat Social Phenotypes Vary in Investigative and Aggressive Behavior in a Laboratory Partner Preference Paradigm

2022· article· en· W4288888840 on OpenAlexafffund
Ilapreet Toor, Rashoun Maynard, Xinye Peng, Annaliese K. Beery, Melissa M. Holmes

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Ecology and Evolution · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAggressionPreferencePsychologyContext (archaeology)PhenotypeAnimal behaviorSocial preferencesSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyBiologyZoologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here we employed the partner preference test (PPT) to examine how naked mole-rat non-breeding individuals of different behavioral phenotypes make social decisions. Naked mole-rats from six colonies were classified into three behavioral phenotypes (soldiers, dispersers, and workers) using a battery of behavioral tests. They then participated in a 3 h long PPT, where they could freely interact with a tethered familiar or tethered unfamiliar conspecific. By comparing the three behavioral phenotypes, we tested the hypothesis that the PPT can be used to interrogate social decision-making in this species, revealing individual differences in behavior that are consistent with discrete social phenotypes. We also tested whether a shorter, 10 min version of the paradigm is sufficient to capture group differences in behavior. Overall, soldiers had higher aggression scores toward unfamiliar conspecifics than both workers and dispersers at the 10 min and 3 h comparison times. At the 10 min comparison time, workers showed a stronger preference for the familiar animal’s chamber, as well as for investigating the familiar conspecific, compared to both dispersers and soldiers. At the 3 h time point, no phenotype differences were seen with chamber or investigation preference scores. Overall, all phenotypes spent more time in chambers with another animal vs. being alone. Use of the PPT in a comparative context has demonstrated that the test identifies species and group differences in affiliative and aggressive behavior toward familiar and unfamiliar animals, revealing individual differences in social decision-making and, importantly, capturing aspects of species-specific social organization seen in nature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Ecology and EvolutionSame topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorFrench-language works237,207