Ambient noise and the design of begging signals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The apparent extravagance of begging displays is usually attributed to selection for features, such as loud calls, that make the signal costly and hence reliable. An alternative explanation, however, is that these design features are needed for effective signal transmission and reception. Here, we test the latter hypothesis by examining how the begging calls of tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) nestlings and the response to these calls by parents are affected by ambient noise. In a field study, we found that call length, amplitude and frequency range all increased with increasing noise levels at nests. In the laboratory, however, only call amplitude increased in response to the playback of noise to nestlings. In field playbacks to parents, similar levels of noise abolished parental preferences for higher call rates, but the preference was restored when call amplitude was increased to the level that nestlings had used in the laboratory study. Our results show that nestling birds, like other acoustic signallers, consistently increase call amplitude in response to ambient noise and this response appears to enhance discrimination by receivers. Thus, selection for signal efficacy may explain some of the seemingly extravagant features of begging displays.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it