MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376869906 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.ade7172

Early life adversity and adult social relationships have independent effects on survival in a wild primate

2023· article· en· W4376869906 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth C. Lange, Shuxi Zeng, Fernando A. Campos, Fan Li, Jenny Tung, Elizabeth A. Archie, Susan C. Alberts

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsSocialityPsychologyBaboonDevelopmental psychologySocial supportMediationYoung adultIntervention (counseling)PopulationDemographySocial psychologyBiologyEcologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adverse conditions in early life can have negative consequences for adult health and survival in humans and other animals. What variables mediate the relationship between early adversity and adult survival? Adult social environments represent one candidate: Early life adversity is linked to social adversity in adulthood, and social adversity in adulthood predicts survival outcomes. However, no study has prospectively linked early life adversity, adult social behavior, and adult survival to measure the extent to which adult social behavior mediates this relationship. We do so in a wild baboon population in Amboseli, Kenya. We find weak mediation and largely independent effects of early adversity and adult sociality on survival. Furthermore, strong social bonds and high social status in adulthood can buffer some negative effects of early adversity. These results support the idea that affiliative social behavior is subject to natural selection through its positive relationship with survival, and they highlight possible targets for intervention to improve human health and well-being.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations39
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicPrimate Behavior and EcologyFrench-language works237,207