Causes for and consequences of winning intergroup encounters in colobus monkeys ( <i>Colobus vellerosus</i> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The outcome of an intergroup encounter depends on the relative competitive abilities of the participating groups and the value of the resource for which they compete. However, few studies have been able to assess the consequences of winning intergroup encounters. We used behavioral and demographic data from 94 adult and subadult individuals in 8 groups of Colobus vellerosus at Boabeng-Fiema, Ghana to investigate the factors that predict winning intergroup encounters, and whether intergroup encounter success determines access to food and female reproductive output. In support of the hypothesis that groups with high-quality males would be more likely to win encounters, winning the encounter was best predicted by rates of displays by the alpha male. Food trees that were contested during intergroup encounters were more likely to have young leaves or other higher quality food items and to be important food species. Feeding was more likely to occur during and after the intergroup encounter if the focal animal’s group had won the encounter. The percentage of encounters won was correlated with the group’s dominance rank but not with home range size or the immature-to-female ratio. In populations such as the Boabeng-Fiema colobus in which male quality seems to be associated with winning intergroup encounters and gaining immediate access to food, one of the drivers for female transfer between groups may be differences in alpha male quality between groups and across time.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".