Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31183554›Full record

ArticleDie Naturwissenschaften2019

What do we need to know to recognize a contest?

Nelson Silva Pinto, Paulo Enrique Cardoso Peixoto

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Die Naturwissenschaften, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nelson Silva PintoGraduate Program in Ecology, Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA), Av. Adhemar de Barros, s/n° - Ondina, Salvador, BA, 40170-110, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9189-7068
Paulo Enrique Cardoso PeixotoInstituto de Ciências Biológicas, Departamento de Genética, Ecologia e Evolução, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, MG, 31270-901, Brazil. pauloenrique@gmail.com.

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 305561/2014-6Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 443977/2014-3Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia JCB0034/2013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animals frequently use agonistic contests as a way to solve disputes over indivisible resources. Such agonistic contests often represent interactions between an owner and a non-owner of a resource. However, some behaviors adopted by rivals during agonistic interactions are similar to behaviors adopted in other types of interactions. Thus, the possibility exists that some interactions between individuals can be misinterpreted as actual agonistic contests. Herein, we synthesize information from prior studies that present interactions that may be confounded with actual agonistic contests. We also point potential problems when different types of confoundment occur and provide suggestions of how to distinguish between agonistic contests and alternative interactions. For this, we made a distinction between completely non-agonistic interactions and quasi-agonistic interactions (i.e., interactions in which at least one rival is not motivated to fight). We also show potential biases in the understanding of how rivals decide who is the winner of a contest for studies that consider non- or quasi-agonistic interactions as actual agonistic contests.

Indexed as

Agonistic BehaviorAnimalsEcologyAgonistic interactionsCompetitionContestsDisputesResources

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.