Social stimulation of dawn singing in Dusky Flycatchers: a serendipitous experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypotheses regarding dawn singing in birds remain largely unsupported by quantitative data, especially for suboscine passerines (suborder Tyranni). During a study of the singing behavior of a suboscine, the Dusky Flycatcher (Empidonax oberholseri), in Alberta, Canada, spring storms in 2002 caused the disappearance and presumed mortality of several territorial males and some of their replacements, creating a serendipitous experiment. Overall, 15 males disappeared and, as a result, the number of territorial males in our study area declined from 13 prior to the storms to six afterward. Only one male maintained the same territory throughout the breeding season. During the period of inclement weather and social instability (20 May to 9 June), males sang at high rates during the predawn period. From 10 to 19 June, following this period of unstable weather and turnover in territorial males, males began dawn singing later in the morning, and sang shorter bouts at lower rates. The proportion of males engaging in dawn singing also decreased between the two periods. In contrast, daytime singing activity of paired males was low during both time periods. Playback of dawn songs to territorial males between 20 June and 21 July caused a resumption of some dawn singing. Singing rates were higher on the day of playback than on the day before playback, and the times when dawn singing was initiated were earlier on each of 2 d after playback than on the day before playback. In addition, the proportion of males engaging in dawn singing increased between the day before and the day after playback. Both the decrease in dawn singing when population density was reduced and its partial restoration by playback suggest that dawn singing in this species functions in male–male interactions and support the social-dynamics hypothesis as an explanation for the dawn chorus in this species.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".