MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169559041 · doi:10.1111/jav.00622

Conspicuous calling near cryptic nests: a review of hypotheses and a field study on white‐browed scrubwrens

2014· review· en· W2169559041 on OpenAlexafffund
Tonya M. Haff, Andrew G. Horn, Madeleine Leonard, Robert D. Magrath

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Avian Biology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)BiologyPredationWhite (mutation)EcologyPredatorAlarm signalZoologyALARM

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predation is an important source of nest mortality in many bird species and calling near the nest can increase this risk, yet adults of many species regularly vocalize near their nests. Some of these calls serve clearly adaptive functions, such as alarm or provisioning calls. However, many species also give conspicuous ‘contact’ calls near the nest, which is puzzling because the function of these calls is unclear, and they might attract predators. Most studies of parental vocalizations near nests have focused on specific vocalizations and single hypotheses, yet there is a diversity of vocalization types and potential functions. We review the literature on the diversity and possible function of parental vocalizations near the nest, and then investigate the puzzle of conspicuous contact calling near nests by white‐browed scrubwrens Sericornis frontalis . In scrubwrens, ‘chip‐zz’ contact calls were almost always used when adults approached nests, and when they approached one another or changed location. Call composition also changed: the proportion of ‘chip’ elements increased as callers approached the nest or other adults. Neither adult sex nor nestling age affected calling. Thus, chip‐zz calls appear to be used as ongoing signals to other group members of the caller's activity and location, particularly relative to the nest. Nestlings appeared to use the calls as cues of adult arrival, and increased calling as adults approached nests. Further, adults called less after a predator was on the territory, suggesting that parents may be able to reduce the risk of chip‐zz calls betraying nest location, or possibly use the absence of calling as a signal of danger. This study thus demonstrates that calling near nests could inform both adults and nestlings about the caller's behaviour, and could serve multiple functions. Future studies will need to experimentally test these functions, as well as the other hypotheses reviewed here.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Avian BiologySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207