Temporal stability of primate scent samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A common recommendation in the field of animal chemosignaling is to store and transport scent samples frozen, since they are likely to change with time and degrade due to bacterial activity inside the sample containers and the loss of the most volatile compounds. However, we still ignore the exact pattern of change or degradation for these types of samples. Here we experimentally tested the stability of primate scent samples during analytical procedures. For this purpose, we used swabs of naturally deposited glandular secretions from captive tamarins (Neotropical primates) analyzed by headspace gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. We successively extracted the samples by solid-phase microextraction, while controlling for the delay between extractions, and compared the number of compounds detected in the samples under each condition. We found that compounds were lost and transformed over time inside the sample vials. Such natural decay of scent signals is likely to contribute to the long term information transmitted. We found no evidence that long delays at room temperature affected sample chemical composition more than short delays. Nonetheless, we showed that repeated extraction of a sample increased the loss of compounds. The changes in sample chemical composition observed over time in this experiment support standard recommendation to avoid storing samples for long periods at room temperature and to extract each sample only once, in order to ensure optimum results.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".