The role of touch in marine mammal sociality: a review and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While social living has many advantages, it also has significant challenges associated with differences in individual interests, abilities, and intentions. Individuals in social species rely on diverse behaviours and signals across senses to mediate their relationships. In some species—particularly primates—touch plays a key role in establishing, affirming, and repairing social bonds. However, the degree to which touch is involved in pro-social behaviours in mammalian taxa is poorly understood. Marine mammals have unique adaptations to different levels of aquatic life and environments and display diverse social structures. They, therefore, represent a valuable source of comparison to deepen our understanding of the behavioural mechanisms that enable social living. Here, we examined current trends in research on social touch in marine mammals and evaluated existing evidence for its affiliative functions. Because of the logistical challenges associated with observing touch in species that spend most of their lives underwater, only a few odontocete species and captive populations dominate the existing literature. The prevalence of tactile interactions outside the mother-infant relationship is influenced by a species’ social structure. Still, we found that touch was involved in mediating a range of relations, from ephemeral and presumably anonymous to life-long individualized social bonds. We suggest leveraging emerging technologies, complemented by different behavioural data across modalities, long-term monitoring, and ensuring comparability to expand and deepen our understanding of how animals mediate their social relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".