Individuals' behaviors following dye-marking in wild black-and-white colobus (Colobus vellerosus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to recognize individuals is a prerequisite for analyzing social relationships. We marked five adult and subadult Colobus vellerosus (three in 2002, and two in 2003) at the Boabeng Fiema Monkey Sanctuary, Ghana, to assess the feasibility of dye-marking black-and-white colobus, describe their reactions, and compare some of their behaviors with those of unmarked individuals. We used Nyanzol-D, a nontoxic black dye sprayed on the white tail (or white thigh) of the animal with a spray gun or a tree sprayer. Reactions to the marking procedure ranged from moving away and staring at the observer, without interruption in feeding (in one subject), to fleeing about 5 m away (in four subjects). In 234 hr of ad libitum observations (in 2002 and 2003), marks were scratched or otherwise were the object of attention from the bearer or other individuals on only one occasion. In 2002 we collected 22 hr of observations on the three marked monkeys and some unmarked monkeys in 10-min focal samples. Neither the marked nor the unmarked animals attended to the marks during focal samples. Marked and unmarked individuals displayed similar rates of displacement activities (autogrooming, scratching, and yawning). The proportion of scans with at least one near neighbor varied between marked and unmarked subjects, but the direction of the difference was not the same between males and females. The only aggression observed was displacements, and only in one comparison (out of four) did a difference emerge: the marked subadult male received more displacements than the unmarked males. Overall, marked and unmarked individuals did not differ consistently in our measures. Examination of the potential effects of marking should continue, since changes in pelage coloration may have longer-term social effects in species that rely largely on vision.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".