Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38204796›Full record

ReviewRoyal Society open science2024

Sperm whale clans and human societies.

Hal Whitehead

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Integrating cultural dimensions in sperm whale (Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  4. Multi-level societies: different tasks at different social levels.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Higher order affordances.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025
    Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hal WhiteheadBiology Department, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4R2.ORCID 0000-0001-5469-3429
Dalhousie University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sperm whale society is structured into clans that are primarily distinguished by vocal dialects, which may be symbolic markers of clan identity. However, clans also differ in non-vocal behaviour. These distinctive behaviours, as well as clan membership itself, are learned socially, largely within matrilines. The clans can contain thousands of whales and span thousands of kilometres. Two or more clans typically use an area, but the whales only socialize with members of their own clan. In many respects the closest parallel may be the ethno-linguistic groups of humans. Patterns and processes of human prehistory that may be instructive in studying sperm whale clans include: the extreme variability of human societies; no clear link between modes of resource acquisition and social structure; that patterns of vocalizations may not map well onto other behavioural distinctions; and that interacting societies may deliberately distinguish their behaviour (schismogenesis). Conversely, while the two species and their societies are very different, the existence of very large-scale social structures in both sperm whales and humans supports some primary drivers of the phenomenon that are common to both species (such as cognition, cooperation, culture and mobility) and contraindicates others (e.g. tool-making and syntactic language).

Indexed as

clancultureethno-linguistic grouplarge-scale societiessperm whalesymbolic marker

Identifiers

PMID38204796
PMCPMC10776220
OpenAlexW4390749492

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.