Behavioral diversity and agonism are higher in larger groups among wild Costa Rican capuchins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Biologists have long been interested in the causes, costs, and benefits of group living. Within species, group sizes vary and affect the behavior of group members. Yet, few studies have investigated how behavioral diversity—defined here as the number of distinct behaviors occurring in a given time period—and frequency of agonistic behaviors relate to group size. Here, we test the predictions of the Resource Distribution Hypothesis. To do so, we analyzed >65,000 behavioral scans collected over 15 yr in Sector Santa Rosa, Costa Rica, on 214 white-faced capuchins inhabiting eight social groups. We found that cross-sectional behavioral richness and diversity was higher in larger groups than in smaller groups and that individuals in larger groups exhibited significantly higher behavioral richness and diversity across the day (longitudinally). We also found that agonism frequency at the group level was higher in larger groups, suggesting increased competition. Understanding these relationships provides insight into group dynamics, patterns of interindividual competition, and potential constraints on group size.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".