Reaching New Heights: The Effect of an Environmentally Enhanced Outdoor Enclosure on Gibbons in a Zoo Setting
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gibbons have adapted to live in the canopy layer of the rainforest. Gibbons in the wild predominantly spend their time high in the trees resting, traveling, and foraging for food. Comparatively, gibbons in the zoo often rest and search for their food terrestrially. The purpose of this study was to provide these arboreal smaller apes with more opportunities to utilize more vertical space. Six gibbons (4 Nomascus leucogenys and 2 Symphalangus syndactylus) were observed in 2 phases of an observational study. The 1st phase measured space utilization and behaviors of the zoo-housed gibbons in their original outdoor enclosures using instantaneous sampling. The 2nd phase measured the same space usage and behaviors after several modifications were made to the environmental structures in the same outdoor enclosures. A 2-way mixed-model analysis of variance tested the height utilization of the 6 gibbons. The gibbons chose to spend significantly more time outside and at higher heights when the new structures were added. This study shows that given the opportunity, gibbons will exhibit more species-appropriate behaviors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it