MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946668185 · doi:10.1080/08927936.2019.1598651

Human–Ape Interactions in a Zoo Setting: Gorillas and Orangutans Modify Their Behavior Depending upon Human Familiarity

2019· article· en· W2946668185 on OpenAlex
Janni Pedersen, Kathryn Sorensen, Brian Lupo, Laura Marx

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthrozoös · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisitor patternPsychologyCaptivityAnimal welfareAnimal behaviorNon-humanCuriosityGorillaComparative cognitionAnimal cognitionCognitionComparative psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyCognitive psychologyZoologyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding how human presence influences animal behavior, specifically the behavior of nonhuman primates, has important implications for methodology in cognitive and behavioral studies, for our understanding of human–animal relationships and for animal welfare in captive settings. Conducted in the San Diego Zoo, this study partially replicates an existing study on human–animal relationships, which focused on familiarity effects on the human-directed behavior of great apes residing in the Toronto Zoo. Such a replication in a new location and with different individuals is necessary to expand sample size and to better understand how ontogeny and living environment influence human-directed ape behavior. All-occurrence sampling of human-directed behavior was used to gather data on two gorilla groups and one orangutan group, all housed at the San Diego Zoo. The aim was to compare ape-initiated behaviors toward zoo staff with apeinitiated visitor-directed behavior, in accordance with predictions of the Human–Animal Relationship (HAR) model. Overall, human-directed behaviors were more frequent toward visitors than toward staff, mainly caused by increased visitor-directed visual behavior, specifically brief glances. Given that visual monitoring has been seen as fearful behavior, potentially related to predator monitoring, this would confirm the expectation that lack of familiarity will lead to increased visual vigilance. However, the visitor-directed visual behaviors may not be antagonistic or fearful. Considering the specific behaviors and exhibit designs, curiosity may be an equally likely explanation in this context. Aiming to also understand whether these groups exhibited species differences in human-directed behavior, it was found that orangutans engaged in more affiliative behavior overall than gorillas. Comparing our results with the previous study, we conclude that while effects of familiarity are present, those effects are modulated by both individual ontogeny and exhibit design. While the HAR model is partially supported, additional factors may need to be included to fully interpret the observed behavior. Additional research is needed to further understand the effects of species, sex, and ontogeny on the predictions of the HAR model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it