Calling-song function in male haglids (Orthoptera: Haglidae,<i>Cyphoderris</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the response of males to the singing of nearby male conspecifics in two species of the orthopteran genus Cyphoderris, primitive relatives of crickets and katydids. Lone male Cyphoderris buckelli stridulating in a large cage made a phonotactic approach to a nearby speaker broadcasting conspecific calling song. But in field experiments no phonotaxis to song broadcasts occurred; rather, a significant number of male C. buckelli increased their chirp duty cycle and pulse rate. There was no change in their carrier frequency. Calling male Cyphoderris monstrosa were exposed in the field to (i) playback of a synthetic calling song at a typical conspecific pulse rate, (ii) relayed broadcast of their own call, and (iii) low-frequency audio noise. Call duty cycle decreased significantly in response to the noise, while the pooled song models fell just short of significance. Singing C. buckelli were marked individually and their perches flagged over successive nights. We observed low site fidelity and extensive male displacement. Such behaviour is inconsistent with defense of topographically fixed singing territories and concurs with the absence of fighting in this species. Chirp duty cycle was increased significantly in C. buckelli in response to the singing of nearby conspecifics, but unlike in C. monstrosa, this change in duty cycle plays no role in overt aggression, though it may maintain a male's relative attractiveness to females.
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".