Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38516373›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary human sciences2024

Hunter-Gatherer children's close-proximity networks: Similarities and differences with cooperative and communal breeding systems.

Nikhil Chaudhary, Abigail E Page, Gul Deniz Salali, Mark Dyble, Daniel Major-Smith, Andrea B Migliano, Lucio Vinicius, James Thompson, Sylvain Viguier

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary human sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Demography of grandmothering: a case study in Agta foragers.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Nikhil ChaudharyLeverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1QH, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7528-8529
Abigail E PageDepartment of Anthropology, University College London, London WC1H 0BW, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0973-1569
Gul Deniz SalaliDepartment of Anthropology, University College London, London WC1H 0BW, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9538-3064
Mark DybleLeverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1QH, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6861-1631
Daniel Major-SmithDepartment of Anthropology, University College London, London WC1H 0BW, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6467-2023
Andrea B MiglianoDepartment of Anthropology, University College London, London WC1H 0BW, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4364-2735
Lucio ViniciusDepartment of Anthropology, University College London, London WC1H 0BW, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9396-3249
James ThompsonDepartment of Anthropology, University College London, London WC1H 0BW, UK.
Sylvain ViguierDepartment of Anthropology, University College London, London WC1H 0BW, UK.
University College London · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Zurich · CHUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Among vertebrates, allomothering (non-maternal care) is classified as cooperative breeding (help from sexually mature non-breeders, usually close relatives) or communal breeding (shared care between multiple breeders who are not necessarily related). Humans have been described with both labels, most frequently as cooperative breeders. However, few studies have quantified the relative contributions of allomothers according to whether they are (a) sexually mature and reproductively active and (b) related or unrelated. We constructed close-proximity networks of Agta and BaYaka hunter-gatherers. We used portable remote-sensing devices to quantify the proportion of time children under the age of 4 spent in close proximity to different categories of potential allomother. Both related and unrelated, and reproductively active and inactive, campmates had substantial involvement in children's close-proximity networks. Unrelated campmates, siblings and subadults were the most involved in both populations, whereas the involvement of fathers and grandmothers was the most variable between the two populations. Finally, the involvement of sexually mature, reproductively inactive adults was low. Where possible, we compared our findings with studies of other hunter-gatherer societies, and observed numerous consistent trends. Based on our results we discuss why hunter-gatherer allomothering cannot be fully characterised as cooperative or communal breeding.

Indexed as

allomotheringchildcarecooperationcooperative breedingHunter–gatherers

Identifiers

PMID38516373
PMCPMC10955362
OpenAlexW4391402062

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.