MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Social but seldom sociable animals

2011· book-chapter· en· W80200295 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Innis Dagg

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunicationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some species are social in that they live in groups, but the animals within the groups are not friendly with each other. This chapter will deal with three categories which include species of this nature: primates, large herbivores, and meerkats. Primates Primates considered in this chapter are squirrel monkeys, colobine monkeys, patas monkeys, hamadryas baboons, and sifaka lemurs. Some theorists postulate that the evolution of friendships among female primates depends, to a large extent, upon the environment, especially the food they eat, as we shall see in the discussion of squirrel monkeys. Lynne Isbell and Truman Young (2002) hypothesize on the significance of food and other factors in the life of primates: Accessibility of food: In species that eat high-quality food growing in clumps, females should be philopatric (remain in their natal area for life) and defend the food source aggressively against members of other groups. In areas with food uniformly distributed or in small high-quality clumps, the females should emigrate at puberty, lack dominance hierarchies, and not quarrel with other groups given that their food source is not really defensible. Dominance hierarchy: Food that is spread out and largely indefensible can still be problematic. There can be scramble competition for it, meaning that the individuals who get to it first will reduce it for others by eating it themselves, and contest competition whereby high-ranking individuals showing aggression can gain preferential access to the food. Relationships: If females in a group are closely related, they should support each other (nepotism) in order to increase the number of their joint progeny. Possibility of infanticide: If members of a species sometimes kill the offspring of females, then these females should bond together to try to prevent this catastrophe. Heavy predation: If a species is subject to intense predation, the females might band together to counter-attack (depending on the size of the predator) and/or prefer to stay close together to try to detect the danger and evade it. In contrast to this environmental theory for female behavior, male behavior is largely driven by their instinctual wish to be near females, so that they can detect those who are in estrus and mate with as many of them as are willing.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.012

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.168 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→