MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6929864404 · doi:10.5061/dryad.31430

Data from: The legacy effects of keystone individuals on collective behavior scale to how long they remain within a group

2015· dataset· en· W6929864404 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · 2015
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoldnessForagingScale (ratio)Collective behaviorSocial dynamicsCollective actionSocial animalVariation (astronomy)Group behavior

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The collective behaviour of social groups is often strongly influenced by one or few individuals, termed here ‘keystone individuals’. We examined whether the influence of keystone individuals on collective behaviour lingers after their departure and whether these lingering effects scale with their tenure in the group. In the social spider, Stegodyphus dumicola, colonies' boldest individuals wield a disproportionately large influence over colony behaviour. We experimentally manipulated keystones' tenure in laboratory-housed colonies and tracked their legacy effects on collective prey capture following their removal. We found that bolder keystones caused more aggressive collective foraging behaviour and catalysed greater inter-individual variation in boldness within their colonies. The longer keystones remained in a colony, the longer both of these effects lingered after their departure. Our data demonstrate that, long after their disappearance, keystones have large and lasting effects on social dynamics at both the individual and colony levels.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.030

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)Same topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207