MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151014412 · doi:10.1073/pnas.191378898

Caterpillar talk: Acoustically mediated territoriality in larval Lepidoptera

2001· article· en· W2151014412 on OpenAlexaff
Jayne E. Yack, Myron L. Smith, Patrick J. Weatherhead

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerritorialityLepidoptera genitaliaBiologyCaterpillarNest (protein structural motif)InsectZoologyEcologyLarvaCommunicationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We provide evidence for conspecific acoustic communication in caterpillars. Larvae of the common hook-tip moth, Drepana arcuata (Drepanoidea), defend silk nest sites from conspecifics by using ritualized acoustic displays. Sounds are produced by drumming the mandibles and scraping the mandibles and specialized anal "oars" against the leaf surface. Staged interactions between a resident and intruder resulted in escalated acoustic "duels" that were typically resolved within minutes, but sometimes extended for several hours. Resident caterpillars generally won territorial disputes, regardless of whether they had built the nest, but relatively large intruders occasionally displaced residents from their nests. All evidence is consistent with acoustic signaling serving a territorial function. As with many vertebrates, ritualized signaling appears to allow contestants to resolve contests without physical harm. Comparative evidence indicates that larval acoustic signaling may be widespread throughout the Lepidoptera, meriting consideration as a principal mode of communication for this important group of insects.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations97
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207