Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within three millennia, capuchins appear to have made substantial progress in their use of stones relative to other living non-human primates, including the great apes. The rapid evolution of capuchin tool use can help us better understand unclear aspects of our own evolutionary journey; it can also inform us of the decisions we may have to make regarding how we will share our planet with this primate in the future. However, no prior literature has comparatively examined capuchin and human lithics within naturalistic contexts to subsequently tackle the issues of pre-Clovis validity and future capuchin stone use. Therefore, I first review secondary data on the lithic items that capuchins have been interacting with over the last 3000 years in the first section of this paper. Subsequently, I discuss the similarities between present-day capuchin-made lithics and human flintknapping attributes. Essentially, capuchins have become proficient in the motor-skills required to detach flakes from stones in a manner somewhat similar to Oldowan hominins. However, capuchins do not modify these flakes; they use them expediently as a source of mineral nutrition or as hammerstones for percussion activities. In the second section of this paper, I examine literature related to archaeologically controversial sites that supposedly suggest human presence in the Americas predating 12,000 years ago. In particular, I compare capuchin lithics with secondary data from one Mexican site and one Brazilian site to argue whether the stone items at the two sites were made by: 1) neotropical primates; or 2) the forces of nature. Based on my discussion of capuchin lithic activities from past to present, I make a conjecture in the final section of this paper that the right set of conditions could enable modern capuchins to potentially begin intentionally detaching flakes for tool use over the next few centuries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".