Infanticide risk and male quality influence optimal group composition for Colobus vellerosus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The threat of infanticide by males is suggested to determine upper group size limits for some folivores because large female aggregations attract immigrating males. When groups get large enough to become multimale, infanticide risk should decline because, all other things being equal, more males should deter outside takeovers and the counterstrategies of mothers and sires should lower the consequences of inside takeovers. To determine if this scenario can be generalized to all folivorous primates, we began by examining the influence of female and male group size on 4 increasing levels of infanticide risk in folivorous ursine colobus monkeys (Colobus vellerosus) at Boabeng-Fiema, Ghana. Data from 2004 to 2010 on 7 groups analyzed with generalized estimating equation models showed that infanticide risk is heightened in groups with more females and absolutely more males because male immigration is more frequent. However, when controlling for the effect of female group size on male group size, groups with relatively more males have significantly more male immigration and higher infanticide rates. Thus, multimale groups of C. vellerosus show higher infanticide risk compared with unimale groups. Resident males in unimale groups may be higher quality than those in multimale groups because they perform more energetically costly displays and win more encounters. However, males in multimale groups may also suffer from collective action problems making them unable to prevent male immigration and infanticide. This study highlights the importance of the quality of male defenders in infanticide risk and demonstrates intersexual and intrasexual conflict in group composition in C. vellerosus.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".