ArticleeLife2019
Group-specific archaeological signatures of stone tool use in wild macaques.
Article in eLife, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Network analysis highlights socio-demographic patterns of stone tool-using primates.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Brokering peace in the ape (culture) wars.Evolutionary human sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Tool skill impacts the archaeological evidence across technological primates.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Emergent technological variation in archaeological landscapes: a primate perspective.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023Article
- Simulation and social network analysis provide insight into the acquisition of tool behaviour in hybrid macaques.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Three-dimensional surface morphometry differentiates behaviour on primate percussive stone tools.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2021Article
- A deepening understanding of animal culture suggests lessons for conservation.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stone tools in the prehistoric record are the most abundant source of evidence for understanding early hominin technological and cultural variation. The field of primate archaeology is well placed to improve our scientific knowledge by using the tool behaviours of living primates as models to test hypotheses related to the adoption of tools by early stone-age hominins. Previously we have shown that diversity in stone tool behaviour between neighbouring groups of long-tailed macaques (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.