MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140353501 · doi:10.1242/jeb.047910

Energetic cost of communication

2010· article· en· W2140353501 on OpenAlexaff
Philip K. Stoddard, Vielka L. Salazar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
FundersDivision of Integrative Organismal SystemsNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsComputer scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Communication signals may be energetically expensive or inexpensive to produce, depending on the function of the signal and the competitive nature of the communication system. Males of sexually selected species may produce high-energy advertisement signals, both to enhance detectability and to signal their size and body condition. Accordingly, the proportion of the energy budget allocated to signal production ranges from almost nothing for many signals to somewhere in excess of 50% for acoustic signals in short-lived sexually selected species. Recent data from gymnotiform electric fish reveal mechanisms that regulate energy allocated to sexual advertisement signals through dynamical remodeling of the excitable membranes in the electric organ. Further, males of the short-lived sexually selected species, Brachyhypopomus gauderio, trade off among different metabolic compartments, allocating energy to signal production while reducing energy used in other metabolic functions. Female B. gauderio, by contrast, do not trade off energy between signaling and other functions. To fuel energetically expensive signal production, we expect a continuum of strategies to be adopted by animals of different life history strategies. Future studies should explore the relation between life history and energy allocation trade-offs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.003

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations74
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207