Test of the ecological‐constraints model on ursine colobus monkeys (<i>Colobus vellerosus</i>) in Ghana
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
For group-living mammals, the ecological-constraints model predicts that within-group feeding competition will increase as group size increases, necessitating more daily travel to find food and thereby constraining group size. It provides a useful tool for detecting scramble competition any time it is difficult to determine whether or not food is limiting. We tested the ecological-constraints model on highly folivorous ursine colobus monkeys (Colobus vellerosus) at the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary in Ghana. Three differently sized groups were followed for 13 months and two others were followed for 6 months each in 2004-2005 using focal-animal sampling and ranging scans; ecological plots and phenology surveys were used to determine home-range quality and food availability. There was relatively little difference in home-range quality, monthly food availability, diet, adult female ingestion rates, and rate of travel within food patches between the groups. However, home-range size, day-range length, and percent of time spent feeding all increased with group size. We performed a single large test of the ecological-constraints model by combining several separate Spearman correlations, each testing different predictions under the model, using Fisher's log-likelihood method. It showed that the ecological-constraints model was supported in this study; scramble competition in this population is manifesting in increased ranging and time spent feeding. How costly this increased energy expenditure is for individuals in larger groups remains to be determined.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it