Having a big nose: structure, ontogeny, and function of the elephant seal proboscis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proboscis of male elephant seals ( Mirounga Gray, 1827) has been suggested as an example of a secondary sexual trait since Darwin. There has been much speculation about its social function (e.g., optical signal of breeding status, amplification of vocalizations, cue for female choice). However, it has never been studied in detail, probably because its fleshy nature makes measurement difficult. In this paper, we employ photogrammetry to measure the proboscis and facial morphology of a large sample of wild, unrestrained, displaying male southern elephant seals ( Mirounga leonina (L., 1758)). We describe ontogeny and allometry of the proboscis and analyze current phenotypic selection pressures on proboscis traits. We discuss the potential role of the proboscis in optical and acoustic signaling of male resource-holding potential and status. We demonstrate that proboscis size is positively correlated with age and body size independently, and that it is currently under a positive sexual selection pressure when the effect of selection on body size is removed. We suggest that selection on proboscis size is functionally related to the emission of agonistic vocalizations.
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 | 0.001 | 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".