MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Scale effects and constraints for sound production in katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae): correlated evolution between morphology and signal parameters

2008· article· en· W2106547181 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Fernando Montealegre‐Z

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrthoptera Research and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsTettigoniidaeOrthopteraBiologySound productionScale (ratio)Morphology (biology)Evolutionary biologyPaleontologyAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Male katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) produce mating calls by rubbing the wings together, using specialized structures in their forewings (stridulatory file, scraper and mirror). A large proportion of species (ca. 66%) reported in the literature produces ultrasonic signals as principal output. Relationships among body size, generator structures and the acoustic parameters carrier frequency (f(c)) and pulse duration (p(d)), were studied in 58 tropical species that use pure-tone signals. A comparative analysis, based on the only available katydid phylogeny, shows how changes in sound generator form are related to changes in f(c) and p(d). Anatomical changes of the sound generator that might have been selected via f(c) and p(d) are mirror size, file length and number of file teeth. Selection for structures of the stridulatory apparatus that enhance wing mechanics via file-teeth and scraper morphology was crucial in the evolution of ultrasonic signals in the family Tettigoniidae.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations90
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicOrthoptera Research and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207