Thermal consequences of increased pelt loft infer an additional utilitarian function for grooming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A strong case has been made that the primary function of grooming is hygienic. Nevertheless, its persistence in the absence of hygienic demand, and its obvious tactical importance to members of primate groups, underpins the view that grooming has become uncoupled from its utilitarian objectives and is now principally of social benefit. We identify improved thermoregulatory function as a previously unexplored benefit of grooming and so broaden our understanding of the utilitarian function of this behavior. Deriving the maximum thermal benefits from the pelt requires that it be kept clean and that the loft of the pelt is maintained (i.e., greater pelt depth), both of which can be achieved by grooming. In a series of wind-tunnel experiments, we measured the heat transfer characteristics of vervet monkey (Chlorocebus pygerythrus) pelts in the presence and absence of backcombing, which we used as a proxy for grooming. Our data indicate that backcombed pelts have improved thermal performance, offering significantly better insulation than flattened pelts and, hence, better protection from the cold. Backcombed pelts also had significantly lower radiant heat loads compared to flattened pelts, providing improved protection from radiant heat. Such thermal benefits, therefore, furnish grooming with an additional practical value to which its social use is anchored. Given the link between thermoregulatory ability and energy expenditure, our findings suggest that grooming for thermal benefits may be an important explanatory variable in the relationship between levels of sociability and individual fitness. Am. J. Primatol. 78:456-461, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".