2019
DOI: 10.1007/s10329-019-00720-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Editorial: Social networks analyses in primates, a multilevel perspective

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We found support for our prediction that social networks along the road would be less cohesive than social networks within the forest. Regardless of network type, social networks had lower density— i.e., were less cohesive 32,78 —along the road than in the forest. The loss of cohesion is further demonstrated by the greater cluster modularity score Q in the road affiliative network compared to the forest affiliative network.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…We found support for our prediction that social networks along the road would be less cohesive than social networks within the forest. Regardless of network type, social networks had lower density— i.e., were less cohesive 32,78 —along the road than in the forest. The loss of cohesion is further demonstrated by the greater cluster modularity score Q in the road affiliative network compared to the forest affiliative network.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To examine how metrics in forest networks differed from metrics in road networks, we used randomization tests, a common approach to compare observed and simulated social networks 32,34,69 . For both interaction and proximity-based networks, and for each network metric analysed, we first subtracted each individuals’ metric value in the road network from their metric value in the estimated forest network.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These links are quantified and graphically represented through social network analysis (SNA; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). The application of SNA within primatology has a long history (Beisner, Jackson, Cameron, & McCowan, 2011; Flack, Girvan, De Waal, & Krakauer, 2006; McCowan, Anderson, Heagarty, & Cameron, 2008; McCowan et al, 2011; Sade, 1972; Sade, Altmann, Loy, Hausfater, & Breuggeman, 1988), but only adopted new software platforms for complex network analytics within the last decade (Brent, Lehmann, & Ramos‐Fernández, 2011; Puga‐Gonzalez, Sosa, & Sueur, 2019). The application of SNA within areas of primatology has included documenting patterns of disease transmission (Gómez, Nunn, & Verdú, 2013; Griffin & Nunn, 2012; MacIntosh et al, 2012; Nunn, 2012; Rimbach et al, 2015; Rushmore et al, 2013), characterizing the structure of adult social interactions (Barrett, Henzi, & Lusseau, 2012; Kasper & Voelkl, 2009; Lehmann & Ross, 2011; Sueur, Jacobs, Amblard, Petit, & King, 2011), modeling fission–fusion dynamics (Ramos‐Fernández & Morales, 2014; Ramos‐Fernández, Boyer, Aureli, & Vick, 2009; Shimooka, 2015; Smith‐Aguilar, Aureli, Busia, Schaffner, & Ramos‐Fernández, 2019; Wakefield, 2013), and assessing structure of captive social groups (Clark, 2011; Dufour, Sueur, Whiten, & Buchanan‐Smith, 2011; Levé, Sueur, Petit, Matsuzawa, & Hirata, 2016; Rodrigues & Boeving, 2019; Schel et al, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The recent update of computational models for social network analysis (SNA) enables quantitative evaluation of complex processes of social networks based using big data. The basic framework of SNA envisions multiple nodes as animals, viruses, people, or any other agents within the network and at its edges as a dyadic relation mathematically defined between the two nodes (e.g., [3][4][5]). The SNA aims to statistically link network structures with bottom-up rules defining dyadic relations, e.g., affiliations, friendships, proximities, co-occurrences, follower/followee, signal sender/receiver, or communications [6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%