Protozoan parasites in group‐living primates: testing the biological island hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of articles by W.J. Freeland published in the 1970s proposed that social organization and behavioral processes were heavily influenced by parasitic infections, which led to a number of intriguing hypotheses concerning how natural selection might act on social factors because of the benefits of avoiding parasite infections. For example, Freeland [1979] showed that all individuals within a given group harbored identical gastrointestinal protozoan faunas, which led him to postulate that social groups were akin to "biological islands" and suggest how this isolation could select specific types of ranging and dispersal patterns. Here, we reexamine the biological island hypothesis by quantifying the protozoan faunas of the same primate species examined by Freeland in the same location; our results do not support this hypothesis. In contrast, we quantified two general changes in protozoan parasite community of primates in the study area of Kibale National Park, Uganda, over the nearly 35 years between sample collections: (1) the colobines found free of parasites in the early 1970s are now infected with numerous intestinal protozoan parasites and (2) groups are no longer biological islands in terms of their protozoan parasites. Whatever the ultimate explanation for these changes, our findings have implications for studies proposing selective forces shaping primate behavior and social organization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".