Social interactivity in pigeon courtship behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
. In Experiment 1, a live face-to-face real-time interaction between 2 courting pigeons (Live) was compared to a played back version of the video stimulus recorded during the pairs Live interaction. We found that pigeons were behaving interactively; their behavior depended on the relationships between their own signals and those of their partner. In Experiment 2, we tested whether social interactivity relies on spatial cues present in the facing direction of a partner's display. By moving the teleprompter camera 90° away from its original location, the partner's display was manipulated to appear as if it is directed 90° away from the subject. We found no effect of spatial offset on the pigeon's behavioral response. In Experiment 3, 3 time delays, 1 s, 3 s, and 9 s, a Live condition, and a playback condition were chosen to investigate the importance of temporal contiguity in social interactivity. Furthermore, both opposite-sex (courtship) and same-sex (rivalry) pairs were studied to investigate whether social-context affects social interactivity sensitivity. Our results showed that pigeon courtship behavior is sensitive to temporal contiguity. Behavior declined in the 9 s and Playback conditions as compared to Live condition and the shorter time delays. For males only, courtship behavior also increased in the 3-s delay condition. The effect of social interactivity and time delay was not observed in rivalry interactions, suggesting that social interactivity may be specific to courtship.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".