Natal Attraction in Adult Female Baboons (<i>Papio cynocephalus ursinus</i>) in the Moremi Reserve, Botswana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mammalian females are strongly attracted to infants and interact regularly with them. Female baboons make persistent attempts to touch, nuzzle, smell and inspect other females’ infants, but do not hold them for long periods, carry them, or provide other kinds of care for them. Mothers generally tolerate these interactions, but never initiate them. The function of these brief alloparental interactions is not well understood. Infant handling might be a form of reproductive competition if females’ interest in infants causes distress to mothers or harm to their infants. Alternatively, infant handling might be the product of selection for appropriate maternal care if females who are highly responsive to infants are the most successful mothers. We test several predictions derived from these hypotheses with data collected in a free‐ranging group of baboons (Papio cynocephalus ursinus) in the Moremi Reserve of Botswana. Infants were most attractive when they were very young. Mothers of young infants were approached by other adult females on average once every 6 min, and other females attempted to handle their infants approximately once every 9 min. By the time infants were a year old, their mothers were being approached only once every 30 min and infants were being handled only once every 5 h. Females were more strongly attracted to other females’ infants when they had young infants of their own, and their interest in other females’ infants declined as their own infants matured. Females seemed to be equally attracted to all infants, but had greater access to offspring of their relatives and subordinate females. Females nearly always grunted as they handled infants. As in other contexts grunts are a reliable predictive signal that non‐aggressive behavior will follow, the use of grunts before handling suggests that these interactions were not a form of deliberate harassment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".