dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Results We found data on social organisation for 247 populations from 110 of the 226 extant artiodactyl species. The majority of these species showed variation in their social organisation at the species level (74. 5%, 82 out of 110). Five species were strictly solitary (4. 5%), only one was strictly pair-living (0. 9%), one showed sex-specific social organisation (0. 9%), and eleven showed only one form of group-living (Table  1 ). A more detailed breakdown of variable social organisation is available in Supplementary Material Table  S5. At the population level, 62% (155/247) of all populations also had variable social organisation. Of the 82 species showing variable social organisation, five (6. 1%) showed variation between populations, twenty-nine (35. 4%) showed variation within a population, and forty-eight (58.
Discussion Our dataset revealed that IVSO occurred in 75% of Artiodactyla species. For species showing IVSO, social organisation was variable within 62% of populations. These trends are consistent with previous descriptions of IVSO in artiodactyls  [58]  and other mammals including Carnivora [27% of species classified as 'flexible'; 6], Eulipotyphla [43. 8% of species with data; 21], Rodentia  [16, 20] , and strepsirrhine primates [60. 5% of species with data; 22]. Mounting evidence of extensive IVSO in mammals challenges the common assumption in comparative studies that all species have only one social organisation  [7, [59] [60] [61]. Failing to account for intraspecific variation will likely result in spurious conclusions about social evolution, slowing theoretical advancement  [17, 25].
Using modern phylogenetic methods, we can now easily account for IVSO by analyzing data at the population rather than the species level. Moreover, greater effort should be made to build datasets from high-quality, primary sources rather than relying on secondary sources and taxonomic inference. Our results change our understanding of social evolution. Both Jarman  [18]  and Pérez-Barbería et al. [13]  assumed in their early comparative studies that the ancestral artiodactyl was socially monogamous (pair-living) with evolutionary transitions to polygyny and group-living. In contrast, Lukas & Clutton-Brock  [7]  argued that solitary living was the ancestral condition for most mammalian orders, including Artiodactyla. Contrary to these studies, our analysis estimated the ancestral social organisation to be variable, with possible transitions to both pair-living or group-living depending on body size, or sexual dimorphism and breeding seasonality, respectively (or possible unmeasured variables that cause variation in these factors).
The likelihood of IVSO increased with degree of sexual dimorphism. In polygynous systems, a large percentage of males may not breed  [66]. Some males may live with other males in bachelor groups, increasing the prevalence of IVSO. In some species, such as African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) there is a rotation system in which breeding males join herds of breeding females for a period of time  [67]. During this time, the males breed and fight, but then re-join bachelor groups to recover from the energetic costs of breeding  [67]. In conclusion, our study demonstrated three major points regarding social evolution: 1) ancestral artiodactyl social organisation was variable and not pair-living, as was long assumed, 2) in artiodactyls, the frequency of IVSO increased with increasing sexual dimorphism and decreased with body size, and 3) taking IVSO into account and using a high-quality dataset significantly changes our understanding of social evolution.
Funding. M. I. M was supported by the  University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. CS was supported by the  CNRS  and the  University of Strasbourg. M. F. B. was funded by Discovery Grants by the  Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. L. D. H. was funded by the  University of Tennessee at Chattanooga UC Foundation  and a  Visiting Scholar award  from the  University of Strasbourg Institute for Advanced Study.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions that contributed to improve the manuscript. We would also like to thank:  Marcelle Kaufman  for useful discussions on the manuscript (this work stems from her initial idea of the concept of logical bifurcation diagrams);  Denis Thieffry  for critical reading of the manuscript and useful suggestions; Aurélien Naldi  for useful comments on the integration of GINsim and bioLQM libraries; and  José E. R. Cury  and  Claudine Chaouiya  for useful discussions on the exploration of neighbouring Boolean functions. Finally, we would like to dedicate this work to the memory of René Thomas.
Funding WA has been supported by postdoctoral grants from the  LabEx Memo-Life  and from the  Ecole Normale Supérieure , and by the  French Plan Cancer  ( 2014-2017 ), in the context of the project entitled Modeling cell communication networks in breast cancer -CoMET. PTM has been supported by national funds through  Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT)  with  reference PTDC/EEI-CTP/2914/2014  and  UID/CEC/50021/2013.
Availability The software used to compute a bifurcation diagram, given a model and a component, is freely available at https://github. com/ptgm/bifurcation under a GNU General Public License v3. 0 (GPL-3. 0). This software is expected to be made available as part of the set of software tools made available at http://github. com/colomoto by the http://CoLoMoTo. org (Consortium for Logical Models and Tools) consortium, and integrated into the GINsim modeling and simulation tool (http://ginsim. org).
As an introduction, the French nuclear regulatory framework is presented here, to emphasize the key issues and the scientific challenges. An analysis of the current French practices and the need to better assess the seismic margin of nuclear facilities contributed to the shaping of the scientific roadmap of SINAPS@. SINAPS@ was aimed at conducting a continuous analysis of completeness and gaps in databases (for all data types, including geology, seismology, site characterization, materials), of reliability or deficiency of models available to describe physical phenomena (i. e. , prediction of seismic motion, site effects, soil and structure interactions, linear and nonlinear wave propagation, material constitutive laws in the nonlinear domain for structural analysis), and of the relevance or weakness of methodologies used for seismic safety assessment.
This critical analysis that confronts the methods (either deterministic or probabilistic) and the available data in terms of the international state of the art systematically addresses the uncertainty issues. We present the key results achieved in SINAPS@ at each step of the full seismic analysis, with a focus on uncertainty identification, quantification, and propagation. The main lessons learned from SINAPS@ are highlighted. SINAPS@ promotes an innovative integrated approach that is consistent with Guidelines #22, as recently published by the French Nuclear Safety Authority (Guidelines ASN #22 2017), and opens the perspectives to improve current French practice.
e. , combination of the failure probability and the consequences). Although identified, these three critical points greatly reduced, or if not, made impossible, assessment of the available seismic margins of nuclear facilities. SINAPS@ was then intended to evaluate seismic safety continuously from the fault to the civil engineering works and equipment, to emphasize the quantification and propagation of the uncertainties. The exploration of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties concerned all of the databases and metadata that were used, the knowledge and modeling of the physical processes of the coupling and interactions between the geological medium and the building that are strongly related to the level of the seismic occurrences considered, and the methods used at each stage of the assessment of seismic hazard and the vulnerability of the nuclear structures and components.
SINAPS@ was structured around six topics, called Work Packages (WPs) (see Fig. 1 ), that covered the entire seismic analysis chain: WP1, Seismic hazard; WP 2, Nonlinear interactions between near and far wave fields, the geological medium, and the structures; WP 3, Seismic behavior of structures and components; WP4, Seismic risk assessment; WP5, Experimental contributions/building-building interaction studies; and WP6, Knowledge dissemination and training sessions. The project was financed by the French Government in 2013, and benefited from this national funding. In particular, SINAPS@ supported nine PhD students and 21 one-year post-doctoral positions. The main objectives of SINAPS@ were to: • Rank various parameters and evaluate the impact of uncertainties (through data and methods) at each step: seismic hazards, site effects, dynamic soil-structure interaction (SSI), seismic behavior of structures and equipment, and failure assessment; • Propose an innovative method (as verified and validated calculation software) for the modeling of seismic wave propagation in the most integrated and continuous way, from the fault to the seismic response of the structures and equipment; • Improve seismic margin assessment methodologies; • Formulate recommendations on research and development actions and data acquisition, and on engineering practices, and in particular for assessment of the vulnerability of structures and components, and enhancement of analytical methodologies, including preparation of their dissemination and the evolution of the regulations.
e. , the probability of exceeding a parameter over a given period of time). 2. RFS 2001-01 and Guidelines ASN/2/01 provide acceptable methods for the definition of seismic movement for the design of the facilities. There are no specific reference documents for the safety review phases of installations, which take place every 10 years in France. Guidelines  ASN #22 (2017)  as applicable to the design of nuclear power reactors are also considered as the main reference for nuclear plant assessment. During these review periods, safety is entirely evaluated by the licensee. From the seismic risk point of view, this includes conducting seismic margin studies on the existing facility in the light of an updated state-of-the-art SHA. These studies require implementation of the most up-to-date databases, and also the most representative methods to define the actual behavior of the structure during an earthquake.
WP2 contributed to the nonlinear SSI assessment and the full three-dimensional (3D) wavefield estimate from fault to foundation, with integration of the uncertainties in the soil and structure materials. Site effects topics were treated both in WP1 and WP2, to improve the interface between the reference SHA and the SSI. WP3 focused on structure and equipment seismic response predictions, with the development of simplified and complex nonlinear structural mechanics models that are relevant to the treatment of various situations. WP4 was the integrative block of the WP1, WP2, and WP3 outputs, and challenged its developments against the data from the KAR-ISMA benchmark exercise (IAEA 2014), based on the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa NPP site technical details provided by TEPCO. Finally, WP5 was fully focused on the building-building interactions topic and the damping identification, through the combination of a specific experimental approach and simulation.
Indeed, treatment of uncertainties cannot be separated from the whole approach, which as mentioned above, is specifically intended to cover the uncertainties inherent in the definition of the reference earthquakes. The uncertainties taken into account within the RFS 2001-01 approach implicitly introduce safety margins into the seismic analysis. As a consequence, reconsideration of the treatment of the uncertainties in the RFS 2001-01 approach would necessary lead to reconsideration of the associated margins. SINAPS@ WP1 worked on the characterization of the data and methods uncertainties, and investigated alternative approaches to integrate and explore the uncertainties, using DSHA or PSHA. It is also crucial to remember that: 3. any DSHA and PSHA performed for a target site shares: • The overall knowledge in the seismic hazard field, and the references (e.
This conceptual difference explains why only a PSHA provides, by definition, an annual frequency of exceedance, while a DSHA will never provide this probabilistic information. As an extension, this means that however it is performed, a DSHA will never produce an output that is relevant to conduct a full seismic risk analysis, as it requires, by definition, a probabilistic description of the hazard. • Then in the treatment of uncertainties (of both data and models), be it epistemic or aleatory. On this point, the SINAPS@ WP1 research proposes some alternatives to current French practice. As a consequence, several SINAPS@ WP1 actions finally benefited both DSHA and PSHA, as the improvement of all of the basic data, the earthquake occurrence, the ground motion prediction models, and the characterization of the uncertainties.
H a ð Þ is necessarily obtained from PSHA. DSHA is not of interest in this framework. Equation (1) needs to be associated to the hazard curve annual frequency occurrence and the confidence level information. As Guidelines ASN #22 require the licensee to perform probabilistic safety assessment to evaluate the failure probabilities of structures and components important to safety, PSHA then becomes mandatory. Fragility curves are a valuable tool, as they establish the link between seismic hazard and the effects on the built environment. Fragility curves express the probability distribution functions associated to a class of assets for the reaching or exceeding of predefined damage states for a range of ground motion intensities. A database of a great number of ground motions is required to provide enough information to estimate the parameters defining the fragility curves in any reliable way.
Synthesis of Main • Any database or model used in SHA studies must be published and fully accessible, and their procedures for data processing and modeling must be explained and justified, to ensure traceability and transparency. • The selection of models (to describe seismicity in time and space, and/or to predict ground motion) should be driven by the level of their verification and validation against qualified data. The complexity of empirical models (and the number of proxies they consider) should be chosen with respect to the confidence level for the data and metadata; fixing some of the parameters with a priori values might induce additional uncertainties into the process. 2015). For expert debate, the data (or database, model) as published is acceptable until superseded, with justification for new peer-reviewed publications.
Basic Data in Metropolitan France SINAPS@ mainly continued the work initiated in the SIGMA project, see  (Pecker et al. 2017). In particular, the SIHEX catalog was completed and made available for the community. This catalog contains information and metadata of instrumental events, and has been standardized to Mw through an explicit procedure, using the coda of signals. The SIHEX catalog has been merged with the historical events also characterized by Mw: the FCAT17 catalog was published as a SIGMA output  (Manchuel et al. 2017; Traversa et al. 2017; Baumont et al. 2018). SINAPS@ WP1 considered FCAT17 was the most up-to-date seismic catalog for metropolitan France that covered historical and instrumental periods. Of note, it has the advantage of being published through the peer-review system, and was available to the whole community.
Seismic Source Characteristics SINAPS@ WP1 contributed to improvements to the focal mechanisms of French earthquakes. These focal mechanisms are important, as they are, for example, used to propose seismotectonic zoning. They also characterize the deformation regime of faults. In addition to improving the French focal mechanism database, the work performed in SINAPS@ showed the strong dependency between the metadata, as shown in  Fig. 8 (Do Paco et al. 2017). In some cases, the focal mechanism was correlated with the depth of the event, with the depth itself mainly controlled by the velocity model used to locate the event. This also means that the uncertainties of all of these metadata are correlated, and they cannot be considered as propagated independently when performing a SHA.
Seismic Motion Prediction SINAPS@ WP1 partners used the strong motions available in open databases. The quality and usefulness of the NGA-West 2 (gathering worldwide, as shallow crustal earthquakes in active regimes) and the Resorce Euro Mediterranean databases are highlighted by SINAPS@ WP1. These two databases: • Fulfil the quality, traceability and signal treatment processes required for the use of the data and metadata, and the uncertainties they contain. • Supersede previous published databases. In particular, the strong motion database used in 2000 to derive the GMPE prescribed by RFS2001-01 is not yet recommended (choice of metadata not appropriate, in terms of magnitude scale and event-tostation distance definition, or site characterization through classes based on large intervals of estimated shear-wave velocity).
SINAPS@ WP1 underlines that in some cases, the metadata provided by the strong motion databases are not fully derived from empirical raw data. As an example, sometimes rupture parameters are provided, but they are related to a seismological model, and not directly deduced from the data. This is of great importance when these metadata (and their uncertainties) are used to produce ground motion prediction models. Some recent GMPEs proposed very complex functional forms, including rupture parameters; but are all of these seismic rupture models compatible? Is the model complexity in agreement with the level of knowledge provided by the raw seismological data? Among all of the metadata, the distance between the event and the recording station is of primary importance. The multiplicity of definitions with respect to the rupture area is representative of the seismic models behind these distance definitions.
Bayesian Tool as an Objective Alternative to Expert Judgment SINAPS@ WP1 successfully tested the potential of Bayesian model averaging approaches to rank and weight a set of GMPE candidates to be included in DSHA or PSHA. This technique was applied using state-of-the-art GMPEs that were taken from a study in the French metropolitan territory. A strong motion dataset that was considered to be representative of the expected ground motion on site was extracted from the RESORCE database, to challenge the predictions of the different GMPEs against these observed data. The SINAPS@ study clearly showed that without any a priori information on the GMPEs, the Bayesian model averaging provided hierarchy and weighting of the GMPEs that was only based on their relevance with respect to real data  (Bertin et al.
2018b). Other seismic parameters are of particular importance (e. g. , Kappa, resonance frequency) and should complete the site description. State-of-the-art GMPEs require several site-specific parameters, used as 'proxys' in their functional forms. Laurendeau et al. (2017)  and  Bora et al. (2015 Bora et al. ( , 2017) )  took advantages of the availability of well-characterized strong motion databases (i. e. , KikNet, Resorce, respectively) to propose alternative approaches to classical host-to-target corrections, mainly based on the Vs 30m and Kappa parameters. These studies showed that the host-to-target adjustment is particularly 'approach-sensitive', and results might vary widely. Site-specific studies require permanent and temporal geophysical and seismological instrumentations to better constrain the 'site term' (to allow adjustment to the GMPE predictions based on the ergodicity assumption, and derived in other territories).
Selection of Time Series That are Compatible with Spectral Hazard Descriptions: Relevance to Engineering Application Needs and Variability Treatments The step of selecting the time series representative of the site-specific seismic hazard is crucial to the whole process of seismic analysis, as these are the seismic inputs of simulations performed to assess the site response, which include all interactions, as studied in WP2, WP3, and WP4. SINAPS@ WP1 and WP4 contributed to this topic through considering the outputs from DSHA and PSHA, to provide response spectra related to specific seismic scenarios and to uniform hazard spectra, respectively. These two kinds of outputs have significantly different physical meanings: the way to select time series (i. e. , from real strong motion databases, or generated from simulations) that are representative of these spectra might drive their seismic characteristics (e.
Validation Site and Data Acquisition at the Argostoli Test Site It is well known that the nonlinear behavior of soil can drastically change site responses in cases of strong ground motion. It is necessary to validate the nonlinear evaluation practices through comparison of simulation results with real data. Accelerometers were then installed along a vertical array (and in a rock reference site) within a small sedimentary basin near the town of Argostoli, on Kefalonia Island (Greece), one of the most seismic areas of Europe. This vertical array represented long-term investment toward the constitution of a new database for possible nonlinear practice validation in a 3D case. This site was chosen due to the feedback from previous studies, and especially the NERA European research program. The vertical array was installed in July 2015, and consisted of four downhole, three-component sensors, which were complemented by two surface sensors, one at the mouth of the borehole, and the other a few hundred meters away, on a rock outcrop.
In addition, considering the occurrence of the January 26, 2014, Mw 6. 2 earthquake less than 20 km from the test sites, it was decided to launch a post-seismic survey with two main objectives: (1) to install temporary accelerometers prior to installation of the permanent array, to record possible strong after-shocks; and (2) to install a dense array of sensors to set-up a database to study spatial short-scale variability. Different sensor types were used: accelerometers, broadband velocimeters, and rotational sensors, and these were deployed for different soil conditions. Even if this kind of database did not address the nonlinearity issue, it was also essential for the SSI studies within the WP2. The temporary accelerometric network has been operating since February 3, 2014 (a few hours after the second strong earthquake, with Mw 6.
0) until July 2015, and it recorded several thousands of events. A first analysis of this database allowed the computation of standard spectral ratios between the rock site and several sites within the basin, which confirmed the location of the permanent vertical array. The dense array was composed of 21 broadband seismometers that were arranged on a five branches of a star, with a maximum radius 180 m. It was in operation over a 5-week period. A database composed by more than 1800 well-recorded earthquakes is now available. These two outstanding databases have been extensively used within the whole SINAPS@ program  (Svay 2017; Svay et al. 2017 , Sbaa et al. 2017). Finally, this study provided the opportunity to complement standard translational measurements by rotational measurements, to allow 'six degrees of freedom' recordings.