Male cowbirds vary the attractiveness of courtship songs with changes in the social context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Courtship-signalling theory often incorporates the assumption that males must consistently produce the highest-intensity displays they can achieve, thereby indicating their underlying quality to females. Contest-signalling theory, in contrast, assumes that flexible signal performance is routine. The two frameworks thereby suggest conflicting predictions about male flexibility when the same signal operates in both intrasexual and intersexual communication. Sexual competition often occurs within complex social environments where male displays can be received by potential mates, rivals, or both at once. In brown-headed cowbirds’ breeding flocks, for example, multiple males sometimes vie directly for a single female’s attention; at other times males have opportunities to sing to females without interference. We tested whether cowbirds vary the intensity of their signalling across contexts like these. We recorded songs from males courting females both with and without a male competitor in sight. We then played those recordings to solitary, naïve females in sound attenuation chambers, and also to a naïve aviary-housed flock. The songs males had produced when they could see their competitors were more attractive, eliciting more copulatory postures from naïve females and more approaches from birds in the flock. Results suggest high-intensity displays function within a larger, flexible signalling strategy in this species, and the varying audience composition that accompanies social complexity may demand flexible signalling even in classic display behaviours such as birdsong.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".