Parent–environmental interactions shape acoustic signatures in tree swallows: a cross‐fostering experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acoustic signatures are common components of avian vocalizations and are important for the recognition of individuals and groups. The proximate mechanisms by which these signatures develop are poorly understood, however. The development of acoustic signatures in nestling birds is of particular interest, because high rates of extra‐pair paternity or egg dumping can cause nestlings to be unrelated to at least one of the adults that are caring for them. In such cases, nestlings might conceal their genetic origins, by developing acoustic signatures through environmental rather than genetic mechanisms. In a cross‐fostering experiment with tree swallows Tachycineta bicolor , we investigated whether brood signatures of nestlings that were about to fledge were attributable to their genetic/maternal origins or to their rearing environment. We found that the calls of cross‐fostered nestlings did not vary based on their genetic/maternal origin, but did show some variation based on their rearing environment. Control nestlings that were not swapped, however, showed stronger brood signatures than either experimental group, suggesting that acoustic signatures develop through an interaction between rearing environment and genetic/maternal effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".