Intrinsic and environmental drivers of pairwise cohesion in wild Canis social groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals within social groups respond to costs and benefits of sociality by adjusting the proportion of time they spend in close proximity to other individuals in the group (cohesion). Variation in cohesion between individuals, in turn, shapes important group-level processes such as subgroup formation and fission-fusion dynamics. Although critical to animal sociality, a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing cohesion remains a gap in our knowledge of cooperative behavior in animals. We tracked 574 individuals from six species within the genus Canis in 15 countries on four continents with GPS telemetry to estimate the time that pairs of individuals within social groups spent in close proximity and test hypotheses regarding drivers of cohesion. Pairs of social canids (Canis spp.) varied widely in the proportion of time they spent together (5%-100%) during seasonal monitoring periods relative to both intrinsic characteristics and environmental conditions. The majority of our data came from three species of wolves (gray wolves, eastern wolves, and red wolves) and coyotes. For these species, cohesion within social groups was greatest between breeding pairs and varied seasonally as the nature of cooperative activities changed relative to annual life history patterns. Across species, wolves were more cohesive than coyotes. For wolves, pairs were less cohesive in larger groups, and when suitable, small prey was present reflecting the constraints of food resources and intragroup competition on social associations. Pair cohesion in wolves declined with increased anthropogenic modification of the landscape and greater climatic variability, underscoring challenges for conserving social top predators in a changing world. We show that pairwise cohesion in social groups varies strongly both within and across Canis species, as individuals respond to changing ecological context defined by resources, competition, and anthropogenic disturbance. Our work highlights that cohesion is a highly plastic component of animal sociality that holds significant promise for elucidating ecological and evolutionary mechanisms underlying cooperative behavior.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".