Targets, Tactics, and Cooperation in the Play Fighting of Two Genera of Old World Monkeys (Mandrillus and Papio):Accounting for Similarities and Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Play fighting in many species involves partners competing to bite one another while avoiding being bitten. Species can differ in the body targets that are bitten and the tactics used to attack and defend those targets. However, even closely related species that attack and defend the same body target using the same tactics can differ markedly in how much the competitiveness of such interactions is mitigated by cooperation. A degree of cooperation is necessary to ensure that some turn-taking between the roles of attacker and defender occurs, as this is critical in preventing play fighting from escalating into serious fighting. In the present study, the dyadic play fighting of captive troops of 4 closely related species of Old World monkeys, 2 each from 2 genera of Papio and Mandrillus, was analyzed. All 4 species have a comparable social organization, are large bodied with considerable sexual dimorphism, and are mostly terrestrial. In all species, the target of biting is the same – the area encompassing the upper arm, shoulder, and side of the neck – and they have the same tactics of attack and defense. However, the Papio species exhibit more cooperation in their play than do the Mandrillus species, with the former using tactics that make biting easier to attain and that facilitate close bodily contact. It is possible that species differences in how rigidly dominance relationships are maintained are expressed in the play of juveniles by altering the balance between competition and cooperation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".