MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130238508 · doi:10.1002/ajp.20678

What role do olfactory cues play in chacma baboon mating?

2009· article· en· W2130238508 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

VenueAmerican Journal of Primatology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorLeverhulme TrustUniversity of Bolton
KeywordsOlfactory cuesOvulationOlfactionMatingPrimateBiologySensory cuePhysiologyOdorBaboonAudiologyZoologyEcologyMedicineNeuroscienceEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The probability of ovulation in a number of primate species is associated with both visual and auditory cues. We use 18-month behavioral data from two chacma baboon troops to provide the first systematic assessment of the possibility that olfactory cues are also involved. Using variance in the rate of olfactory inspection by males as a proxy for changes in the intensity of female vaginal odor, we found that rates of inspection were broadly correlated with changes in female fertility. Males inspected cycling females significantly more than anovulatory, noncycling females and swelling females significantly more than nonswollen cycling females. Rates of inspection peaked around the time at which males first started guarding females and were sustained until the detumescence of the female's sexual skin. We conclude, therefore, that olfactory cues represent one component of a multimodal signal of ovulation in chacma baboons. The possible reasons for such a multimodal signal 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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.229 · 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