Terrestrial Activity in Pitheciins (<i><scp>C</scp>acajao</i>,<i><scp>C</scp>hiropotes</i>, and<i><scp>P</scp>ithecia</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neotropical monkeys of the genera Cacajao, Chiropotes, and Pithecia (Pitheciidae) are considered to be highly arboreal, spending most of their time feeding and traveling in the upper canopy. Until now, the use of terrestrial substrates has not been analyzed in detail in this group. Here, we review the frequency of terrestrial use among pitheciin taxa to determine the ecological and social conditions that might lead to such behavior. We collated published and unpublished data from 14 taxa in the three genera. Data were gleaned from 53 published studies (including five on multiple pitheciin genera) and personal communications of unpublished data distributed across 31 localities. Terrestrial activity was reported in 61% of Pithecia field studies (11 of 18), in 34% of Chiropotes studies (10 of 29), and 36% of Cacajao studies (4 of 11). Within Pithecia, terrestrial behavior was more frequently reported in smaller species (e.g. P. pithecia) that are vertical clingers and leapers and make extensive use of the understory than in in the larger bodied canopy dwellers of the western Amazon (e.g. P. irrorata). Terrestrial behavior in Pithecia also occurred more frequently and lasted longer than in Cacajao or Chiropotes. An apparent association was found between flooded habitats and terrestrial activity and there is evidence of the development of a "local pattern" of terrestrial use in some populations. Seasonal fruit availability also may stimulate terrestrial behavior. Individuals also descended to the ground when visiting mineral licks, escaping predators, and responding to accidents such as a dropped infant. Overall, the results of this review emphasize that terrestrial use is rare among the pitheciins in general and is usually associated with the exploitation of specific resources or habitat types.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".