Female cooperative labour networks in hunter–gatherers and horticulturalists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperation in food acquisition is a hallmark of the human species. Given that costs and benefits of cooperation vary among production regimes and work activities, the transition from hunting-and-gathering to agriculture is likely to have reshaped the structure of cooperative subsistence networks. Hunter-gatherers often forage in groups and are generally more interdependent and experience higher short-term food acquisition risk than horticulturalists, suggesting that cooperative labour should be more widespread and frequent for hunter-gatherers. Here we compare female cooperative labour networks of Batek hunter-gatherers of Peninsular Malaysia and Tsimane forager-horticulturalists of Bolivia. We find that Batek foraging results in high daily variation in labour partnerships, facilitating frequent cooperation in diffuse networks comprised of kin and non-kin. By contrast, Tsimane horticulture involves more restricted giving and receiving of labour, confined mostly to spouses and primary or distant kin. Tsimane women also interact with few individuals in the context of hunting/fishing activities and forage mainly with spouses and primary kin. These differences give rise to camp- or village-level networks that are more modular (have more substructure when partitioned) among Tsimane horticulturalists. Our findings suggest that subsistence activities shape the formation and extent of female social networks, particularly with respect to connections with other women and non-kin. We discuss the implications of restricted female labour networks in the context of gender relations, power dynamics and the adoption of farming in humans. This article is part of the theme issue 'Cooperation among women: evolutionary and cross-cultural perspectives'.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".