Conventional displays: Evidence for socially mediated costs of threat displays in a lizard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Threat displays are used to settle the vast majority of contests between green anoles (Anolis carolinensis). While these displays have been the subject of a number of studies, very little is understood about the information they convey. Theoretical models divide displays into several types of signals, based on the mechanism that stabilizes their use: 1) performance signals, 2) handicapping signals, or 3) conventional displays. The existence of performance displays has excellent empirical support, as do models of their use. Handicapped signalling models, especially those relating to mate‐choice, have been highly influential, though little evidence suggests that threat displays are, in fact, handicapping. Most threat displays appear to be conventional, but little empirical work documents conventional signalling systems. This study investigated the use of headbob, pushup, and lateral compression displays, and concluded that headbob cadence, a discrete signal with three alternative rhythms, is a conventional display indicating impending escalation. Pushups and lateral compression displays appear not to be handicaps, since neither indicates impending escalation, and they do not correlate with fighting ability or condition. Aggr. Behav. 30:326–341, 2004. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".