In female degus, reunions are less variable when relationships are new
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When establishing new peer relationships, animals may explore different modes of interaction, testing-out dominance roles, reciprocation of affiliation, and responses to investigation. This exploration is potentially risky, as higher variability may be counterproductive to establishing expectations and trust. There is therefore a tradeoff between exploration within a new social relationship and maintaining predictable, ‘safe’ behaviours, raising questions about how animals differ in how they engage with strangers. The Chilean degu offers an opportune case study to investigate novel social situations, as females form relationships relatively rapidly with unrelated peers. We presented degu dyads with a series of 20 min ‘reunion’ sessions and found that session-to-session variability in stranger females is, in fact, lower than in cagemates, and lower than stranger or cagemate males. Reduced variability was observed only after an initial social exposure, suggesting it was a feature of new relationships rather than novelty. There was no evidence that groups differed in predictability of behaviours within a reunion. It is known that in the wild, female degus differ from males by readily forming cooperative relationships with unrelated individuals. The data therefore raise the possibility that animals predisposed to cooperation might also show reduced behavioural variability across encounters with new individuals. This work offers new results and methods for considering strategies animals use to cope with social uncertainty.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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 it