MacaqueNet: Advancing comparative behavioural research through large‐scale collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a vast and ever-accumulating amount of behavioural data on individually recognised animals, an incredible resource to shed light on the ecological and evolutionary drivers of variation in animal behaviour. Yet, the full potential of such data lies in comparative research across taxa with distinct life histories and ecologies. Substantial challenges impede systematic comparisons, one of which is the lack of persistent, accessible and standardised databases. Big-team approaches to building standardised databases offer a solution to facilitating reliable cross-species comparisons. By sharing both data and expertise among researchers, these approaches ensure that valuable data, which might otherwise go unused, become easier to discover, repurpose and synthesise. Additionally, such large-scale collaborations promote a culture of sharing within the research community, incentivising researchers to contribute their data by ensuring their interests are considered through clear sharing guidelines. Active communication with the data contributors during the standardisation process also helps avoid misinterpretation of the data, ultimately improving the reliability of comparative databases. Here, we introduce MacaqueNet, a global collaboration of over 100 researchers (https://macaquenet.github.io/) aimed at unlocking the wealth of cross-species data for research on macaque social behaviour. The MacaqueNet database encompasses data from 1981 to the present on 61 populations across 14 species and is the first publicly searchable and standardised database on affiliative and agonistic animal social behaviour. We describe the establishment of MacaqueNet, from the steps we took to start a large-scale collective, to the creation of a cross-species collaborative database and the implementation of data entry and retrieval protocols. We share MacaqueNet's component resources: an R package for data standardisation, website code, the relational database structure, a glossary and data sharing terms of use. With all these components openly accessible, MacaqueNet can act as a fully replicable template for future endeavours establishing large-scale collaborative comparative databases.
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 | 0.073 | 0.167 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.012 |
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".