Echo response to chirping in the weakly electric brown ghost knifefish (<i>Apteronotus leptorhynchus</i>): role of frequency and amplitude modulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teleost fish of the order Gymnotiformes are distinguished by their ability to produce electric discharges by means of specialized organs. These electric organ discharges serve various behavioral functions, including communication. During such electric interactions, male brown ghost knifefish ( Apteronotus leptorhynchus (Ellis in Eigenmann, 1912)) generate several types of transient frequency and amplitude modulations (“chirps”) of the otherwise nearly constant discharges. Previous studies have shown that the chirps generated by one individual follow those of the other with a preferred latency of approximately 500–1000 ms. As demonstrated in the present study, signals consisting of either frequency modulations or amplitude modulations are able to trigger this echo response. Signals composed of just amplitude modulations are effective in triggering an echo response only if the reduction in amplitude is large (approximately 40%, relative to baseline of the electric organ discharge of the emitting fish). By contrast, in frequency-modulated signals, a maximum frequency increase as small as 1.2% relative to baseline frequency is sufficient to trigger an echo response. This remarkable sensitivity might be an adaptation for the detection of so-called type-2 chirps, as chirps of this type are composed of rather small frequency increases and negligible amplitude modulations. In line with this hypothesis is the observation that during electric interactions of two fish, the generation of these chirps dominates the production of any of the other five chirp types known.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".