Playback responses of socially monogamous black‐fronted titi monkeys to simulated solitary and paired intruders
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many birds and primates use loud vocalizations to mediate agonistic interactions with conspecifics, either as solos by males or females, or as coordinated duets. The extensive variation in duet complexity, the contribution of each sex, and the context in which duets are produced suggest that duets may serve several functions, including territory and mate defense. Titi monkeys (Callicebus spp.) are believed to defend their home range via solo loud calls or coordinated duets. Yet there are remarkably few experimental studies assessing the function of these calls. Observations of interactions between wild established groups and solitary individuals are rare and, therefore, controlled experiments are required to simulate such situations and evaluate the mate and joint territorial defense hypotheses. We conducted playback experiments with three free-ranging groups of habituated black-fronted titi monkeys (Callicebus nigrifrons) to test these hypotheses. We found that titi monkeys responded to the three conspecific playback treatments (duets, female solos, and male solos) and did not respond to the heterospecific control treatment. The monkeys did not show sex-specific responses to solos (N = 12 trials). Partners started to duet together in 79% of their responses to playback-simulated rivals (N = 14 calls in response to playback). Males started to approach the loudspeaker before females regardless of the type of stimulus. The strength of the response of mated pairs to all three conspecific treatments was similar. Overall, our results are consistent with the idea that black-fronted titi monkeys use their loud calls in intergroup communication as a mechanism of joint territorial defense.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it