How do differences in species and part consumption affect diet nutrient concentrations? A test with red colobus monkeys in <scp>K</scp>ibale <scp>N</scp>ational <scp>P</scp>ark, <scp>U</scp>ganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Within a primate species, diet can be highly variable in composition, even at small spatial scales within the same forest, or temporally, suggesting that primates use different plant species and parts to meet similar nutritional needs. To test whether such differences in the plant species and parts that primates eat affects the nutrient concentrations that they obtain, we observed feeding of seven groups of red colobus monkeys ( P rocolobus rufomitratus ) residing in K ibale N ational P ark, U ganda. The different groups consumed mostly young leaves from many of the same plant species, but spent different amounts of time feeding on them. As protein and fibre are suggested to be important determinants of colobine food choice and abundance, we analysed multiple samples of 47 food species for protein and fibre. Despite the differences in the plant species and parts eaten, the protein and fibre concentrations for the seven red colobus groups were similar. Our results suggest that colobus monkeys eating diets with differing amounts of species and parts may ultimately receive similar concentrations of nutrients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".