Acoustic interactions in broods of nestling birds (Tachycineta bicolor).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of acoustic interactions in animal groups, such as chorusing insects, anurans, and birds, have been invaluable in showing how cooperation and competition shape signal structure and use. The begging calls of nestling birds are ideal for such studies, because they function both as a cooperative signals of the brood's needs and as competitive signals for parental allocation within the brood. Nonetheless, studies of acoustic interactions among nestlings are rare. Here we review our work on acoustic interactions in nestling tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor), especially how calls are used in competition for parental feedings. Nestlings attracted parental attention and responded to acoustic interference mainly by increasing call output. However, nestlings also gave more similar calls when they called together and decreased their call bandwidth when exposed to elevated noise. We suggest that these competitive uses of calls might intensify the cooperative brood signal, affecting both parental provisioning and vocal development. Given their tremendous variation across species, begging calls offer promising opportunities for developmental and comparative studies of acoustic signaling.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".