The use of the bared-teeth display during play fighting in Tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana): Sometimes it is all about oneself.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Play signals are viewed as important means by which animals inform each other that bites, strikes, and throws that occur during play fighting are indeed playful rather than serious. One such signal is the open mouth play face that is common in primates and many other mammals. Unfortunately, as most play fighting involves biting, it can be ambiguous as to whether any instance of opening the mouth is performed to communicate playful intent or is simply a preparation for biting. In this study, open mouths co-occurring with the bared-teeth display (teeth-baring) in Tonkean macaques were used to assess the context in which facial gestures only relevant for signaling (i.e., teeth-baring is not necessary for biting) are used during play. Two predictions arising from the hypothesis that play signals are used to facilitate playful contact were tested: that the open mouth with teeth-baring should (1) be most frequent preceding contact, and (2) that it should be performed most often when bites are directed at orientations that is visible to the recipient. The data only partially support these predictions. The open mouth with teeth-baring is also frequently used when a monkey withdraws from playful contact. Moreover, it is associated with bites to body targets, such as the rump, that offer little prospect for detection by the recipient; this supports the possibility that play signals may sometimes be emitted not to communicate with the partner but with the performer itself. Thus, play signals serve multiple functions during play fighting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".