Contact calling behaviour in the male ring‐tailed lemur (<i>Lemur catta</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ring‐tailed lemur (Lemur catta) is a group‐living strepsirhine primate endemic to Madagascar that has a complex vocal repertoire including affiliative moan and hmm calls. Past research has suggested that both vocalisations may be contact calls, and we assessed their usage in addition to examining the effect of individual differences and social factors on male calling behaviour. We tested three hypotheses: the group cohesion, preferred companion and individual differences hypotheses. From March to July 2010, 565 h of focal animal data were collected on 31 males aged ≥1 year at the Beza Mahafaly Special Reserve, Madagascar. Focal males were observed for 30 min, with vocalisations, allogrooming and agonistic interactions noted using one‐zero sampling, and general behaviour, nearest neighbour identity and distance noted using instantaneous point sampling, all at 2.5 min intervals. We found support for the group cohesion hypothesis for both vocalisations, and support for the preferred companion and individual differences hypotheses for the hmm but not the moan vocalisation. Moan and hmm calls maintained the distance between a male and his nearest neighbour, and were made at higher rates during behaviours which may lead to separation from conspecifics, such as travel and vigilance. Males made hmm calls at higher rates when they were low‐ranking, and/or when the nearest neighbour of a male or a preferred companion of either sex. Low‐ranking males may hmm call to maintain proximity to specific individuals within social groups who will show them increased tolerance, with the hmm signalling peaceful intent. Ring‐tailed lemurs are one of the best living models of gregarious primate ancestors, and gaining a better knowledge of the function and range of usage of their contact calls informs our understanding of the evolution of primate cognition.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".