MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057066802 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025413

Flexibility in Animal Signals Facilitates Adaptation to Rapidly Changing Environments

2011· article· en· W2057066802 on OpenAlexafffund
Darren S. Proppe, Christopher B. Sturdy, Colleen Cassady St. Clair

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Adaptation (eye)Sexual selectionBiologyDominance (genetics)Animal communicationEcologyCommunicationEvolutionary biologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Charles Darwin posited that secondary sexual characteristics result from competition to attract mates. In male songbirds, specialized vocalizations represent secondary sexual characteristics of particular importance because females prefer songs at specific frequencies, amplitudes, and duration. For birds living in human-dominated landscapes, historic selection for song characteristics that convey fitness may compete with novel selective pressures from anthropogenic noise. Here we show that black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) use shorter, higher-frequency songs when traffic noise is high, and longer, lower-frequency songs when noise abates. We suggest that chickadees balance opposing selective pressures by use low-frequency songs to preserve vocal characteristics of dominance that repel competitors and attract females, and high frequency songs to increase song transmission when their environment is noisy. The remarkable vocal flexibility exhibited by chickadees may be one reason that they thrive in urban environments, and such flexibility may also support subsequent genetic adaptation to an increasingly urbanized world.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.141 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207