Data from: Better safe than sorry: spider societies mitigate risk by prioritizing caution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group members often vary in the information that they have about their environment. In this study, we evaluated the relative contribution of information held by the population majority vs. new immigrants to groups in determining group function. To do so we created experimental groups of the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola that were either iteratively exposed to a dangerous predator, the ant Anoplopepis custodiens, or kept in safety. We then seeded these groups (i.e., the population majority) with an “immigrant” individual that either had or did not have prior experience with the predator and was either shy or bold. Bold group members are argued to be particularly influential for group function in S. dumicola. We then evaluated colonies’ response towards predators over multiple trials to determine the effect of the immigrant’s and the majority’s prior experience with the predator and the immigrant’s boldness. We found that groups adopt a “better safe than sorry” strategy, where groups avoided predators when either the group or the immigrant had been previously exposed to risk, regardless of immigrant boldness. These findings suggest that past experience with predators, even if only experienced by a single individual in the group, can alter how groups respond to risk in a potentially advantageous manner.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.042 |
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".