The vocal repertoire of an African colobine, Colobus angolensis ruwenzorii: a multi-level society compared to congeners in stable groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Vocal behaviour offers a window into understanding the social life and evolution of animals. Colobine monkeys show great interspecific and interpopulation variation in their social organization and behaviour. Recent research has shown that Rwenzori Angolan colobus ( Colobus angolensis ruwenzorii ) differ substantially from other black-and-white colobus in forming a multi-level society. No previous research has been conducted on the communication of C. a. ruwenzorii , but the social complexity hypothesis for communication suggests that more complex societies should evolve more complex communication repertoires. Our objective was to catalogue the vocal repertoire of C. a. ruwenzorii at Nabugabo, Uganda, and to compare it with the data available on congeners regarding intergroup tolerance, vocal repertoire size, and acoustic and behavioural features of vocal communication. Vocalizations were subject to spectrographic and behavioural analysis, and a descriptive analysis of each vocalization type was made. The influence of a few environmental and social factors on calling rates was also examined. We describe five vocalizations (i.e., the snort, roar, squeak, scream and pok) and one non-vocal signal (i.e., the tongue click) in this subspecies and their contexts. Distinct alarm calls are made for dogs, and these are given more often near the edge of the forest where humans frequent. We did not find that C. a. ruwenzorii showed a greater vocal repertoire than C. guereza or C. polykomos , which do not live in multi-level societies. Further, preliminary data do not indicate greater calling rates in larger core units of C. a. ruwenzorii compared to smaller units. These findings support the view that these primates’ vocalizations tend to be relatively conserved despite large differences in social organization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".