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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 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

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