Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33972846›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2021

Consensus of travel direction is achieved by simple copying, not voting, in free-ranging goats.

D W E Sankey, L R O'Bryan, S Garnier, G Cowlishaw, P Hopkins, M Holton, I Fürtbauer, A J King

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Individual and ecological heterogeneity promote complex communication in social vertebrate group decisions.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Dynamics of collective motion across time and species.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

D W E SankeySwansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6363-8023
L R O'BryanNew Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102, USA.
S GarnierNew Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3886-3974
G CowlishawInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London NW14RY, UK.
P HopkinsSwansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK.
M HoltonSwansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK.
I FürtbauerSwansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1404-6280
A J KingSwansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6870-9767

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For group-living animals to remain cohesive they must agree on where to travel. Theoretical models predict shared group decisions should be favoured, and a number of empirical examples support this. However, the behavioural mechanisms that underpin shared decision-making are not fully understood. Groups may achieve consensus of direction by active communication of individual preferences (i.e. voting), or by responding to each other's orientation and movement (i.e. copying). For example, African buffalo (

Indexed as

collective behaviourcoordinationdecision-makingheuristicsrules-of-thumbself-organization

Identifiers

PMID33972846
PMCPMC8074689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.