Infanticide and reproductive restraint in a polygynous social mammal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alpha male chacma baboons experience uncontested access to individual estrus females. Consequently, alpha male paternity certainty is high and underpins significant levels of infanticide by immigrant males that, in turn, has selected for male defense of infants. There is also, however, a high probability that alpha males will be absent during the period when their own offspring are vulnerable, suggesting selection for additional countermeasures. We use data from a long-term study to test the prediction that alpha male chacma baboons cede reproductive opportunities to subordinate males and that this leads to the presence of other fathers that can serve as a buffer against infanticidal attack. We found that subordinate males obtained significantly more conceptive opportunities than predicted by priority of access alone, and that this occurred because alpha males did not consort all receptive periods. There was no evidence that this was due to energetic constraint, large male cohorts, alpha male inexperience, or the competitive strength of queuing subordinates. The number of males who benefited from concession and the length of time that they were resident relative to those who did not benefit in this way greatly reduced the probability that infants of alpha males would face immigrant males without a surrogate father whose own offspring were vulnerable. The absence of such males was associated with observed infanticide as well as, unexpectedly, an increased likelihood of takeover when alpha males with vulnerable infants were present.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".