M’Pungu between Charles Darwin and Wolfgang Köhler: the changing human perceptions of great apes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article, a contribution to the growing field of animal-human history, traces scientific understanding of the great apes over the course of two centuries, with an emphasis on the period from 1850 to 1920. It sets the changing perceptions of apes within the context of intellectual developments, including the revolution sparked by Darwin and continued by a number of lesser-known scientists who studied apes. The important economic and societal advances required to arrange for the transportation of apes from Africa to Europe and their subsequent captivity there are also discussed. The path-breaking studies of apes by the German behavioral scientist Wolfgang Köhler in the 1910s, which laid the foundation for the work of later scientists like Jane Goodall, were based on a gradual shift in the perception of animal intelligence in the broader scientific world, followed by nearly a century of German primate research, observations of gorillas in Germany’s sophisticated zoos, and public funding for the study of primates.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".