MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020429591 · doi:10.47611/jsr.v8i1.609

Hyoid Bone Size and Its Implications for Social Organization and Sexual Selection in Alouatta pigra and the Elusive Alouatta macconnelli

2020· article· en· W3020429591 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aubrey R. Whittaker, Shawn M. Lehman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Student Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySexual selectionHyoid boneZoologyEcologyDemographyAnatomySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research paper is focusing on the hyoid bone in Alouatta pigra and Alouatta macconnelli and determine its role in affecting the social organization and sexual selection of the individuals in these species. This includes the discussion on the dimensions of the hyoid between the males and females as well as an analysis of observed social behaviour patterns and the sexual selection process. It was found that female Alouatta pigra had a larger hyoid than males of the species and that Alouatta macconnelli males had a hyoid nearly twice the size of females. The hyoids were measured from the Mammal Biodiversity collection at the Royal Ontario Museum. The bones dimensions were taken using plastic calipers and their circumference measured using a soft tape measure. Based on the sexual selection and social organisation of Alouatta pigra which is multi-male/multi-female with the occasional unimale with multiple females, the null hypothesis must be accepted as the larger hyoid is not found in males but in females and the size of the hyoid does not affect the social organization in this species. In Alouatta macconnelli, there is little information on this species but the null hypothesis is rejected as males have much larger hyoids than females and the social organization is that of a uni-male with multiple females.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Student ResearchSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207