Acoustic communication in<i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>courtship: Are pulse- and sine-song frequencies important for courtship success?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During courtship, the male Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera, Drosophilidae) emits two kinds of acoustic signals by means of wing vibrations oriented towards the female: pulse song and sine song. To examine the roles of these two song types, different experimental signals were played back to single pairs of flies (with the males made mute by wing removal). To preserve the natural pattern of sound emission, all the experimental signals were constructed from a representative complete song that included both the pulse and the sine components, recorded during a successful courtship. The first experiment showed that playback of a natural complete song restored to wingless males courtship success comparable to that of normal winged males. In the second experiment, in which we distinguished between the effects of pulse song and sine song, pulse song alone was sufficient to stimulate matings between wingless males and virgin females; sine song had a less stimulating effect. In a third experiment we examined the consequences of modifying the carrier frequency of either signal. This had no particular effect on responses to either pulse or sine song. These results suggest that for both these signals, frequency is not involved in the mating success of D. melanogaster.
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".