A multifunctional visual display in elegant trogons targets conspecifics and heterospecifics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avian visual displays often target either conspecifics or heterospecifics, but few visual displays have been described where both conspecifics and heterospecifics are the intended receivers. In this study, combining observational and experimental approaches, we present evidence that a tail-raising display performed by the elegant trogon (Trogon elegans) is used in multiple contexts and is directed at conspecifics and heterospecifics. We observed tail-raising displays toward conspecifics in both intersexual and intrasexual contexts, as well as toward heterospecifics. Displays performed toward heterospecifics were directed at humans, monkeys, or birds of prey, all of which could have been perceived as potential predators. We experimentally tested the possible functions of tail-raising behavior in the presence of a predator by presenting elegant trogons with models of a natural predator and a nonthreatening control. Tail-raising displays were much more likely to occur when trogons were in the presence of a predator model (48% of trials) than a control model (6% of trials). The presence of conspecifics did not influence tail-raising propensity (conspecifics present: 44% of trials and conspecifics absent: 50% of trials). Our results suggest that tail raising in trogons is a multifunctional visual display that may function as an intersexual and intrasexual conspecific signal as well as a pursuit-deterrent signal directed at predators.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".