Eye for an eyespot: how iridescent plumage ocelli influence peacock mating success
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each of the multicolored eyespots (ocelli) on the peacock’s (Pavo cristatus) train is a complex structure with a purple-black center surrounded by concentric blue-green and bronze-gold regions. To investigate the influence of all 3 of these colors on male mating success, we used a physiological model of peafowl vision to quantify those colors as females would perceive them during male courtship displays. Males display at about 45° to the right of the sun’s azimuth (on average) with the female directly in front, so we investigated how colors would be perceived when illuminated at 30°, 45°, and 60° to the right of a female observer. We studied 34 males displaying at leks in 3 feral populations and quantified their copulation success and the colors of their eyespots. Eyespot coloration explained half of the observed variation in peacock mating success, with the hue and iridescence of the blue-green patch being the most important color variables. When we experimentally masked ocelli on 9 males, their copulation success declined almost to 0, supporting the idea that the eyespots are a major focus of female attention and not a trait that is simply correlated with something else that influences female choice. Thus, our study shows that the blue-green eyespot color overwhelmingly influences peacock mating success. The influence of the other eyespot colors on male success is minimal at best, raising questions about their function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it