Recommendations for Abnormal Behaviour Ethograms in Monkey Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory monkey ethograms currently include subcategories of abnormal behaviours that are based on superficial morphological similarity. Yet, such ethograms may be misclassifying behaviour, with potential welfare implications as different abnormal behaviours are likely to have distinct risk factors and treatments. We therefore investigated the convergent validity of four hypothesized subcategories of abnormal behaviours (‘motor’, e.g., pacing; ‘self-stimulation’, e.g., self-sucking; ‘postural’, e.g., hanging; and ‘self-abuse’, e.g., self-biting). This hypothesis predicts positive relationships between the behaviours within each subcategory. Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) data on 19 abnormal behaviours were obtained from indoor-housed animals (n = 1183). Logistic regression models, controlling for sex, age, and the number of observations, revealed that only 1/6 ‘motor’ behaviours positively predicted pacing, while 2/3 ‘self-abuse’ behaviours positively predicted self-biting (one-tailed p-value < 0.05). Furthermore, ‘self-stimulation’ behaviours did not predict self-sucking, and none of the ‘postural’ behaviours predicted hanging. Thus, none of the subcategories fully met convergent validity. Subsequently, we created four new valid subcategories formed of comorbid behaviours. The first consisted of self-biting, self-hitting, self-injurious behaviour, floating limb, leg-lifting, and self-clasping. The second comprised twirling, bouncing, rocking, swinging, and hanging. The third comprised pacing and head-twisting, while the final subcategory consisted of flipping and eye-poking. Self-sucking, hair-plucking, threat-biting, and withdrawn remained as individual behaviours. We encourage laboratories to replicate the validation of these subcategories first, and for scientists working with other species to validate their ethograms before using them in welfare assessments.
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 | 0.188 | 0.335 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.037 |
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".