Wild gibbons plan their travel pattern according to food types of breakfast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Planning for the future is a complex skill that is often considered uniquely human. This cognitive ability has never been investigated in wild gibbons (Hylobatidae). Here we evaluated the movement patterns from sleeping trees to out-of-sight breakfast trees in two groups of endangered skywalker gibbons ( Hoolock tianxing ). These Asian apes inhabit a cold seasonal montane forest in southwestern China. After controlling for possible confounding variables including group size, sleeping pattern (sleep alone or huddle together), rainfall and temperature, we found that food type (fruits or leaves) of the breakfast tree was the most important factor affecting gibbon movement patterns. Fruit breakfast trees were more distant from sleeping trees compared with leaf trees. Gibbons left sleeping trees and arrived at breakfast trees earlier when they fed on fruits compared with leaves. They travelled fast when breakfast trees were located further away from the sleeping trees. Our study suggests that gibbons had foraging goals in mind and plan their departure times accordingly. This ability may reflect a capacity for route-planning, which would enable them to effectively exploit highly dispersed fruit resources in high-altitude montane forests.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".