Targets and Tactics of Play Fighting: Competitive versus Cooperative Styles of Play in Japanese and Tonkean Macaques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Macaques are the most geographically widespread and behaviorally diverse primate genus, and although macaque species share the same, basic social structure, they display broad inter specificvariation in patterns of adult social behavior. Based on these patterns, macaque species have been arranged along a 4-grade scale for social style. At one end of the scale, there are grade 1 species (e.g., Japanese macaques) that have highly hierarchical and despotic social systems, and at the other end, grade 4 species (e.g., Tonkean macaques) that have more relaxed and egalitarian social systems. We predicted that a species from the more despotic end of the spectrum should have more competitive play fights and that a species from the egalitarian end, more cooperative ones. A detailed analysis of videotaped sequences of juvenile play fighting in Tonkean and Japanese macaques was used to characterize the targets and tactics of attack and defense. Even though the two species have a similar behavioral repertoire, there are significant differences in how that repertoire is used and these differences are consistent with one species having more competitive interactions than the other. Contrasting multi-animal play fights versus pairs showed that the more cooperative style of the Tonkean macaques is further exaggerated. The results suggest that differences in styles of attack anddefense in play fighting may be influenced by differences in the species’ social systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".