Who cares who calls? Selective responses to the lost calls of socially dominant group members in the white‐faced capuchin (<i>Cebus Capucinus</i>)
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
In many social mammals and birds, soft vocalizations are habitually produced during dispersed moving and foraging, the function being to maintain contact and regulate spacing between group members. In some species, much louder calls are given sporadically by specific individuals when they become separated from the group, or 'lost'. The function of these calls has seldom been specifically tested, particularly among social primates, but is often assumed to involve regaining contact with the group based on a combination of individually distinctive calls and antiphonal responses to them from within the group. To test these assumptions, we conducted research on two groups of white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus) in Costa Rica. We analyzed 82 bouts of 'lost' calls given by 13 different adult individuals when separated from the group and the antiphonal responses they elicited. Lost calls were individually distinctive and were answered in 35% of calling episodes. Answers were selective: dominant males and females were answered more than were subordinate callers of either sex. As a result, dominant callers relocated and returned to the group more quickly than did subordinate callers. We discuss the potential proximate motivations for, and ultimate benefits of, such selective answering of dominant group members.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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