MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408414988 · doi:10.1017/ehs.2025.7

Social induction and the developmental trajectory of participation in intergroup conflict by vervet monkeys

2025· article· en· W4408414988 on OpenAlexaff
Madison Clarke, Tyler R. Bonnell, Rosemary Blersch, Christina Nord, Chloé Vilette, Chris Young, S. Peter Henzi, Louise Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolutionary Human Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVervet monkeyTrajectoryPsychologySocial psychologyBiologyDevelopmental psychologyZoologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We assess the proposition that intergroup conflict (IGC) in non-human primates offers a useful comparison for studies of human IGC and its links to parochial altruism and prosociality. That is, for non-linguistic animals, social network integration and maternal influence promote juvenile engagement in IGC and can serve as the initial grounding for sociocultural processes that drive human cooperation. Using longitudinal data from three cohorts of non-adult vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus), we show that non-adults are sensitive to personal (age) and situational risk (participant numbers). The frequency and intensity of participation, although modulated by rank and temperament, both mirrors maternal participation and reflects non-adult centrality in the grooming network. The possibility of social induction is corroborated by the distribution of grooming during IGC, with non-adults being more likely to be groomed if they were female, higher-ranking and participants themselves. Mothers were more likely to groom younger offspring participants of either sex, whereas other adults targeted higher-ranking female participants. Although we caution against a facile alignment of these outcomes to human culturally mediated induction, there is merit in considering how the embodied act of participation and the resultant social give-and-take might serve as the basis for a unified comparative investigation of prosociality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionary Human SciencesSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207