Bigger groups have fewer parasites and similar cortisol levels: a multi‐group analysis in red colobus monkeys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If stress and disease impose fitness costs, and if those costs vary as a function of group size, then stress and disease should exert selection pressures on group size. We assessed the relationships between group size, stress, and parasite infections across nine groups of red colobus monkeys (Procolobus rufomitratus) in Kibale National Park, Uganda. We used fecal cortisol as a measure of physiological stress and examined fecal samples to assess the prevalence and intensity of gastrointestinal helminth infections. We also examined the effect of behaviors that could potentially reduce parasite transmission (e.g., increasing group spread and reducing social interactions). We found that cortisol was not significantly related to group size, but parasite prevalence was negatively related to group size and group spread. The observed increase in group spread could have reduced the rate of parasite transmission in larger groups; however, it is not clear whether this was a density-dependent behavioral counter-strategy to infection or a response to food competition that also reduced parasite transmission. The results do not support the suggestion that gastrointestinal parasitism or stress directly imposed group-size-related fitness costs, and we cannot conclude that they are among the mechanisms limiting group size in red colobus monkeys.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".