Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many birds, individuals 'answer' the songs of their pair-mates to produce vocal 'duets'. One hypothesized function of song answering is that it prevents extra-pair birds from intruding into the duetting pair's territory to obtain copulations or usurp one of the pair-mates. In this capacity, answering may signal that the pair-mates are close together, and so are prepared to defend against such an intrusion. Another functional hypothesis states that answering helps pair-mates maintain contact, and so predicts that a bird is more likely to approach its mate after a duet than after a solo song. I used radio-telemetry to monitor the distance between mated black-bellied wrens (Pheugopedius fasciatoventris). I found that birds of both sexes were more likely to answer their mate's song when the mate was close, and that maximum duet length was negatively related to the distance between pair-mates. Furthermore, song answering positively affected the likelihood of one pair-mate approaching the other after a song. In a significant majority of the approaches after duet songs, the answering bird approached the initiator. I conclude that in the black-bellied wren, (i) the occurrence and duration of vocal duets covary with physical closeness and (ii) contact maintenance is a secondary function of duet participation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".