Evolutionary models for the retention of adult–adult social play in primates: The roles of diet and other factors associated with resource acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What factors in animal life history facilitate or reduce the probability that a species will perform play behavior? While some relationships are known within species and across individuals, it is not obvious that such relationships can be used to explain differences and similarities in amount and type of play across large taxonomic groupings of animals, let alone transitions among them. Primates encompass a relatively large assemblage of species that differ in numerous dietary, habitat, reproductive, and physiological processes. While all juvenile primates engage in social play, far fewer primate species engage in social play as adults. Here, derived from theory and more small-scale comparisons, we explore several biological and behavioral phenomena that differ among nonhuman primates and which may explain differences in the occurrence of adult–adult social play. We used phylogenetic logistic regression to assess the correlation of adult play with various life-history, metabolic and socioecological variables. Although the main contribution of our paper is demonstrating use of phylogenetic methods in the context of play evolution, suggestive but not significant evidence was found that adult sexual and nonsexual social play is influenced by diet, habitat, reproductive, and metabolic factors, sometimes in opposite directions, that we discuss along with needed future analyses involving improved data and interactions among traits.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".