MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6948306021 · doi:10.5061/dryad.vt4b8gtwf

Data from: Benefits of living closer to kin vary by genealogical relationship in a territorial mammal

2023· dataset· en· W6948306021 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2023
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSesquiterpenes and Asteraceae Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinshipInclusive fitnessReproductive successKin recognitionKin selectionRace (biology)Proxy (statistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While cooperative interactions among kin are a key building block in the societies of group-living species, their importance for species with more variable social environments is unclear. North American red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) defend individual territories in dynamic neighbourhoods and are known to benefit from living among familiar conspecifics, but not relatives. However, kin-directed behaviours may be restricted to specific genealogical relationships or strongly mediated by geographic distance, masking their influence at broader scales. Using distance between territories as a proxy for the ability of individuals to interact, we estimated the influence of primary kin (parents, offspring, siblings) on the annual survival and reproductive success of red squirrels. This approach revealed associations between fitness and access to kin, but only for certain genealogical relationships and fitness components. For example, females had enhanced annual survival when living closer to their daughters, though the reverse was not true. Most surprising was the finding that males had higher annual reproductive success when living closer to their father, suggesting possible recognition and cooperation among fathers and sons. Together, these findings point to unexpected nuance in the fitness consequences of kinship dynamics for a species that is territorial and largely solitary.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicSesquiterpenes and Asteraceae StudiesFrench-language works237,207