MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4372349531 · doi:10.1101/2023.05.05.539387

When population growth intensifies intergroup competition, female colobus monkeys free-ride less

2023· preprint· en· W4372349531 on OpenAlexaff
T. Jean M. Arseneau‐Robar, Julie A. Teichroeb, Andrew J. J. MacIntosh, Tania L. Saj, Emily Glotfelty, Sarah Lucci, Pascale Sicotte, Eva C. Wikberg

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversity of CalgaryThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggressionCompetition (biology)PopulationPublic goodDemographyPopulation growthPsychologySocial psychologyBiologyEcologyEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In many social species, intergroup aggression is a cooperative activity that produces public goods such as a safe and stable social environment and a home range containing the resources required to survive and reproduce. In this study, we investigate temporal variation in intergroup aggression in a growing population of colobus monkeys to ask a novel question: “Who stepped-up to produce these public goods when the competitive landscape changed?”. Both whole-group encounters and male incursions occurred more frequently as the population grew. Males and females were both more likely to participate in whole-group encounters when monopolizable food resources were available, indicating both sexes engaged in food defence. However, only females increasingly did so over time, suggesting that when intergroup competition intensified, it was females who increasingly invested in home range defence. Females were also more active in male incursions at high population densities, suggesting they also worked harder to maintain a safe and stable social environment over time. This is not to say that males were chronic free-riders when it came to maintaining public goods. Males consistently participated in the majority of intergroup interactions throughout the study period, indicating they may have lacked the capacity to invest more time and effort.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicPrimate Behavior and EcologyFrench-language works237,207