Achromatic Plumage Reflectance, Social Dominance and Female Mate Preference in Black‐Capped Chickadees (<i>Poecile atricapillus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Individual variation in achromatic plumage reflectance of male Black‐capped Chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) is correlated with social rank and reproductive success, suggesting it may play an important role in sexual signaling. We asked whether female chickadees could assess male quality based on plumage, in the absence of information about relative social dominance. Sexually mature but inexperienced females captured during the pair formation period in late fall and early winter were presented with a choice of two unfamiliar, sexually experienced males in separate compartments of an outdoor mate choice arena. Following each preference trial, we released the males into a single compartment and scored their pairwise dominance interactions. In 10 of 11 trials, females spent significantly more time with the male subsequently identified as dominant, despite not witnessing the males interact. Spectral analysis of male plumage reflectance revealed that UV‐chroma of dark body regions (bib, cap and mantle) was significantly greater in dominant, preferred males and that dominant, preferred males had significantly brighter white cheek patches. There were no differences in vocalization rates of preferred and non‐preferred males. These results show that female chickadees can rapidly assess unfamiliar males based on visual cues, and suggest that variation in achromatic plumage functions in sexual 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".