MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113202793 · doi:10.1177/194008291200500109

Crop Raiding Patterns of Solitary and Social Groups of Red-Tailed Monkeys on Cocoa Pods in Uganda

2012· article· en· W2113202793 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTropical Conservation Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsWildlifeCropHuman–wildlife conflictAgroforestryGeographyWildlife conservationBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crop damage by wildlife is a very prevalent form of human-wildlife conflict adjacent to protected areas, and great economic losses from crop raiding impede efforts to protect wildlife. Management plans are needed to decrease damage by raiding wildlife, yet conservation biologists typically lack the basic information needed for informed conservation strategies. Red-tailed monkeys ( Cercopithecus ascanius) raid a variety of crops adjacent to protected forests in East Africa; however, the role of group structure on crop raiding has not been explored. Here, crop raiding patterns of solitary males and social groups were investigated during 10 months in a plantation of mature cocoa in Uganda. Monkeys gained access to the plantation via trees planted as wind breaks and shade trees, and the sighting frequency of groups was negatively related to the distance from the forest edge. In contrast, solitary males were sighted more frequently far from the forest edge and caused proportionately greater damage than members raiding in a social group. These results highlight that for social animals, crop raiding behavior can vary among types of social groupings; appropriate strategies to cope with raiding must therefore respond to this variation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it