MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125794946 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1576

Resonating feathers produce courtship song

2009· article· en· W2125794946 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly S. Bostwick, Damian O. Elias, Andrew C. Mason, Fernando Montealegre‐Z

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsFeatherStridulationWingFlight featherCourtshipAcousticsBiologySound productionZoologyEcologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Male Club-winged Manakins, Machaeropterus deliciosus (Aves: Pipridae), produce a sustained tonal sound with specialized wing feathers. The fundamental frequency of the sound produced in nature is approximately 1500 Hz and is hypothesized to result from excitation of resonance in the feathers' hypertrophied shafts. We used laser Doppler vibrometry to determine the resonant properties of male Club-winged Manakin's wing feathers, as well as those of two unspecialized manakin species. The modified wing feathers exhibit a response peak near 1500 Hz, and unusually high Q-values (a measure of resonant tuning) for biological objects (Q up to 27). The unmodified wing feathers of the Club-winged Manakin do not exhibit strong resonant properties when measured in isolation. However, when measured still attached to the modified feathers (nine feathers held adjacent by an intact ligament), they resonate together as a unit near 1500 Hz, and the wing produces a second harmonic of similar or greater amplitude than the fundamental. The feathers of the control species also exhibit resonant peaks around 1500 Hz, but these are significantly weaker, the wing does not resonate as a unit and no harmonics are produced. These results lend critical support to the resonant stridulation hypothesis of sound production in M. deliciosus.

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 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 score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations38
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207