The calling songs of male spring field crickets (Gryllus veletis) change as males age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sexual traits are typically thought to convey information about a male's quality or condition. Female preference for older males has been documented in many taxa, but the evidence that males signal their age is inconclusive. We investigated lifetime patterns of acoustic mate attraction signalling in a longitudinal study of the spring field cricket, Gryllus veletis. We recorded males continuously throughout their lives, such that every pulse of sound produced by every male was analyzed. Our study answers two main questions: (1) Do calls change as males age? Our results reveal that the calls of male spring field crickets change with age; the calls of older males were quieter, with more silent periods within and between chirps, and produced less often than those of younger males. As males aged most of the changes in call structure reflect decreased calling effort. (2) What is the relationship between calling effort and longevity? Lifetime calling effort was positively related to longevity, such that males that called the most over their life also lived longer than males that called less. Together, our findings provide the most thorough exploration of lifetime signalling patterns in crickets to date.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".