MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105771768 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0458

The key mimetic features of hoverflies through avian eyes

2007· article· en· W2105771768 on OpenAlex
Roderick S. Bain, Arash Rashed, Verity J Cowper, Francis Gilbert, Thomas N. Sherratt

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPeck (Imperial)Batesian mimicryMimicryBiologyPredationSimilarity (geometry)Set (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceZoologyPattern recognition (psychology)CommunicationEcologyPsychologyComputer scienceImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Batesian mimicry occurs when a palatable species (the mimic) gains protection from predators by resembling an unpalatable or otherwise protected species (the model). While some mimetic species resemble their models closely, other species ('imperfect mimics') are thought to bear only a crude likeness. In an earlier study, pigeons (Columba livia) were trained to recognize wasp images in one experiment and non-mimetic (NM) fly images in another by rewarding the pigeons for pecking on the respective image types. These pigeons were subsequently presented with different images, including seemingly wasp-like hoverfly species, and the recorded peck rates on these images were used as a measure of the pigeons' perception of the hoverflies' mimetic similarity. To identify a candidate set of morphological features that the pigeons used when assessing this mimetic similarity, we first extracted a range of biometrical measurements from images originally presented to the pigeons. We then repeatedly optimized an empirical model in an attempt to match the recorded pigeon peck rates while using as few biometrical features as input as possible. Our models were able to fit the pigeon peck rates with considerable accuracy even while excluding many input features. Antennal length, a feature commonly used to discriminate between flies and wasps, was regularly retained as an input variable, but overall a different set of biometrical features was important for predicting the peck rates of pigeons rewarded for identifying wasps compared to those rewarded for identifying NM flies. In highlighting the importance of specific biometrical features in promoting mimicry and the irrelevance of others, our optimized models provide an explanation as to why certain species that appear to be poor mimics to humans are judged to be good mimics by birds.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.222 · 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