Long-term simian research sites: significance for theory and conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simian primates (monkeys and apes) are typically long-lived animals with slow life histories. They also have varying social organization and can slowly impact their environment by either being seed dispersers or by overbrowsing their food trees. As a result, short-term studies and those focusing on just 1 location only provide a snapshot of simian life under a specific set of ecological conditions that typically do not represent the complete spatial and temporal picture. Long-term field studies are needed to obtain a true understanding of their behavior, life history, ecology, and the selective pressures acting on them. Fortunately, there have been many long-term studies of simians, so a great deal is known about many species. Here, we consider examples of long-term studies that have operated continuously for approximately a decade or more. We review studies that deal with ecophysiology, social organization, population and community ecology, or conservation. The information emerging from these sites is particularly helpful in the construction of informed conservation plans, which are desperately needed given the severity of threats to simians and the fact that responses do not occur over the duration of a Ph.D. or granting cycle (typically 1–3 years).
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 | 0.021 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".