Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current consensus on hominoid taxonomy is presented here along with a general description of the distribution, diet, positional behavior, socioecology, conservation status, and some unique behaviors of living hominoids. On the surface, hominoids would appear to be thriving today, with many species and multiple genera. However, nearly all of these species are endangered or critically endangered. Most of the taxonomic diversity within each family and genus has been determined based on behavioral, soft tissue, or genetic analysis and not morphology, the only criterion available to evaluate diversity in the past. If these same criteria could be applied to fossil apes, the author estimates that the diversity of living apes today is at least an order of magnitude (ten times) lower than in the past. In addition to suggesting a huge loss in diversity, which needs to be explained, this presents a great challenge for paleoanthropologists. They rely on comparisons with living apes to make conclusions about extinct apes and humans, but it is doubtful that living ape diversity is representative of the past. Much but perhaps not all of the loss of diversity in living apes is due to human activity. It may also be a result of long‐term interactions with Old World monkeys and perhaps other animals competing for the same resources.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.378 | 0.007 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".