Social life results in social stress protection: a novel concept to explain individual life‐history patterns in social insects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resistance to and avoidance of stress slow aging and confer increased longevity in numerous organisms. Honey bees and other superorganismal social insects have two main advantages over solitary species to avoid or resist stress: individuals can directly help each other by resource or information transfer, and they can cooperatively control their environment. These benefits have been recognised in the context of pathogen and parasite stress as the concept of social immunity, which has been extensively studied. However, we argue that social immunity is only a special case of a general concept that we define here as social stress protection to include group-level defences against all biotic and abiotic stressors. We reason that social stress protection may have allowed the evolution of reduced individual-level defences and individual life-history optimization, including the exceptional aging plasticity of many social insects. We describe major categories of stress and how a colonial lifestyle may protect social insects, particularly against temporary peaks of extreme stress. We use the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) to illustrate how patterns of life expectancy may be explained by social stress protection and how modern beekeeping practices can disrupt social stress protection. We conclude that the broad concept of social stress protection requires rigorous empirical testing because it may have implications for our general understanding of social evolution and specifically for improving honey bee health.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".