Prevalence of tool behaviour is associated with pelage phenotype in intraspecific hybrid long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis aurea × M. f. fascicularis)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Stone-hammering behaviour customarily occurs in Burmese long-tailed macaques, Macaca fascicularis aurea , and in some Burmese-common longtail hybrids, M. f. aurea × M. f. fascicularis ; however, it is not observed in common longtails. Facial pelage discriminates these subspecies, and hybrids express variable patterns. It was tested if stone hammering related to facial pelage in 48 hybrid longtails, across two phenotypes — hybrid-like ( ) and common-like ( ). In both phenotypes, tool users showed similar frequency and proficiency of stone hammering; however, common-like phenotypes showed significantly fewer tool users (42%) than hybrid-like phenotypes (76%). 111 Burmese longtails showed the highest prevalence of tool users (88%). Hybrid longtails living together in a shared social and ecological environment showed a significant difference in tool user prevalence based on facial pelage phenotype. This is consistent with inherited factors accounting for the difference, and thus could indicate Burmese longtails carry developmental biases for their tool behaviour.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 it