MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408373116 · doi:10.1093/beheco/arw072

Selection for multicomponent mimicry: equal feature salience and variation in preferred traits

2016· article· en· W2408373116 on OpenAlexaff
David W. Kikuchi, Johanna Mappes, Thomas N. Sherratt, Janne K. Valkonen

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Ecology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMimicryBatesian mimicryPredationBiologyCategorizationSalience (neuroscience)AposematismSelection (genetic algorithm)PopulationCrypsisEvolutionary biologySalientEcologyPredatorCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligencePsychologyComputer scienceDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When should multiple traits on Batesian mimics be selected to resemble corresponding traits on model species? Here, we explore two possibilities. First, features of equal salience to predators may be used to categorize prey, selecting for multicomponent mimicry. Second, if different predators use single yet different traits to categorize prey, multicomponent mimicry may still be selected. We studied how blue tits categorized rewarding and unrewarding artificial prey items that are differentiated by a combination of two color dimensions. Many birds used both color dimensions to make decisions, and overall, the population selected for multicomponent mimicry. However, a subset of birds used one color or another to make decisions; among this subset, multicomponent mimicry was also favored. The cost of sampling did not affect selection. Our results suggest that multicomponent warning signals may be selected when traits are equally salient to individual predators, or when communities of predators focus on different traits to discriminate between prey.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral EcologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207