MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Divergence between the Courtship Songs of the Field Crickets <i>Gryllus texensis</i> and <i>Gryllus rubens</i> (Orthoptera, Gryllidae)

2001· article· en· W2160667263 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Fitzpatrick, David A. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrthoptera Research and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsField cricketReproductive isolationCourtshipCricketBiologyOrthopteraSympatric speciationIntraspecific competitionGryllus bimaculatusMatingEvolutionary biologyInsectZoologyEcologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acoustic mating signals are often important as both interspecific prezygotic isolating mechanisms and as sexually selected traits in intraspecific mate choice. Here, we investigate the potential for cricket courtship song to act as an isolating mechanism by assessing divergence between the courtship songs of Gryllus texensis and Gryllus rubens, two broadly sympatric cryptic sister species of field crickets with strong prezygotic isolation via the calling song and little or no postzygotic isolation. We found significant species‐level differences in the courtship song, but the song has not diverged to the same extent as the calling song, and considerable overlap remains between these two species. Only two related courtship song characters are sufficiently distinct to play a possible role in prezygotic species isolation.

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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations56
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicOrthoptera Research and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207