MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138937337 · doi:10.1093/beheco/art065

A multifunctional visual display in elegant trogons targets conspecifics and heterospecifics

2013· article· en· W2138937337 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre‐Paul Bitton, Stéphanie M. Doucet

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Ecology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyRaising (metalworking)PredationCommunicationPredatorEcologyZoologyPsychologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207