Adult–Adult Play in Primates: Comparative Analyses of its Origin, Distribution and Evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Comparative analyses were conducted on a data set derived from the literature so as to test several hypotheses which were developed to explain the distribution of adult–adult play fighting within the order primates. Ratings for play occurring in sexual and non‐sexual contexts were developed. Three hypotheses were evaluated: (i) that play occurring in non‐sexual social contexts is a byproduct of its use in sex; (ii) that the occurrence of play is related to its use for social assessment and manipulation, and so is more likely to be present in species with reduced familiarity between individuals; and (iii) that phylogenetic affiliation influences the likelihood that species within clades engage in play. We used independent contrasts to test the first two hypotheses, and both were significant, with the presence of play in sexual contexts accounting for 14–16% of the variance of play in non‐sexual contexts, and reduced social familiarity accounting for 30–40% of the variance in the occurrence of play in non‐sexual contexts. To test the third hypothesis, we mapped the occurrence of both types of play onto known phylogenies. The overlap was not congruent, indicating that phylogenetic relationships did not account for the distribution of play. Given that play in both sexual and non‐sexual contexts was more likely to occur in species with a social organization involving reduced frequency of contact between the sexes and other social group members, we suggest that the likely adaptive value of play fighting is as a tool for social assessment and manipulation. The possible factors that mitigate the use of play fighting for these purposes, such as the availability of other forms of communication that could serve similar functions, are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".