MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vibratory Communication in the Jumping Spider <i>Phidippus clarus</i>: Substrate‐borne Courtship Signals are Important for Male Mating Success

2010· article· en· W1810375101 on OpenAlexaff
Damian O. Elias, Senthurran Sivalinghem, Andrew C. Mason, Maydianne C. B. Andrade, Michael M. Kasumovic

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalCarleton UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersLuonnontieteiden ja Tekniikan Tutkimuksen ToimikuntaAustralian Research Council
KeywordsCourtshipMatingJumping spiderBiologyJumpingAttractionCourtship displayCommunicationZoologySIGNAL (programming language)EcologySpiderPsychologyPhysiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recently, work has shown that multimodal communication is common throughout the animal kingdom but the function of multimodal signals is still poorly understood. Phidippus clarus are jumping spiders in which males produce multimodal (visual and vibrational) signals in both male–male (aggressive) and male–female (courtship) contexts. The P. clarus mating system is complex, with sex ratios and the level of male competition changing over the course of the breeding season. Vibrational signal components have been shown to function in male aggressive contests but their role in courtship has not been investigated. Here, we performed an experiment to test the role of vibrational signaling in courtship by observing mating success for males that were experimentally muted. We show that vibratory courtship signals, and in particular signaling rate, is an important component of mating success and potentially a target of female choice. While the ability to produce vibratory signals significantly increased mating success, some muted males were still able to successfully mate. In these trials, signaling rate also predicted mating success suggesting that redundant signal components may compensate for errors and perturbations in signal transmission or that vibratory signals function to enhance the efficacy of visual signals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207