Tolerance of muzzle contact underpins the acquisition of foraging information in vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muzzle contact, where one animal brings its muzzle into close proximity to that of another, has often been hypothesized as a straightforward means of socially mediated food investigation. Using 2,707 observations of muzzle contact occurring across 3 troops of wild vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus), we tested this social learning hypothesis. We first explored the social structuring of muzzle contact by analyzing the characteristics of initiators and receivers. Similar to previous research, juveniles initiated contact at higher rates than adults, particularly toward adult females and animals with lower dominance rankings. The highest number of contacts occurred between kin compared to contacts between nonkin. However, on the whole, contacts occurred at low rates, even among kin dyads. We next determined whether muzzle contact was used as a means to learn socially, specifically by animals seeking foraging information. We found that initiators did not overwhelmingly target foragers, meaning animals do not appear to directly seek information about food during muzzle contact. However, animals that contacted foragers were more likely forage themselves in comparison to those that contacted nonforagers, suggesting that foragers do provide food information. These findings indicate that both kin and low-ranking animals serve as discriminative stimuli for social tolerance and that foraging animals serve as discriminative stimuli for food availability. We conclude that broad social tolerance, rather than the recipient's knowledge, is the most likely antecedent to muzzle contact and that animals engage in this behavior as a low-cost means of maintaining a baseline level of information about their environment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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".