MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896847132 · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2018.0496

In that vein: inflated wing veins contribute to butterfly hearing

2018· article· en· W2896847132 on OpenAlexafffund
Penghui Sun, Natasha Mhatre, Andrew C. Mason, Jayne E. Yack

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyButterflyWingAnatomyVeinEvolutionary biologyEcologyInternal medicineStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insects have evolved a diversity of hearing organs specialized to detect sounds critical for survival. We report on a unique structure on butterfly wings that enhances hearing. The Satyrini are a diverse group of butterflies occurring throughout the world. One of their distinguishing features is a conspicuous swelling of their forewing vein, but the functional significance of this structure is unknown. Here, we show that wing vein inflations function in hearing. Using the common wood nymph, Cercyonis pegala , as a model, we show that (i) these butterflies have ears on their forewings that are most sensitive to low frequency sounds (less than 5 kHz); (ii) inflated wing veins are directly connected to the ears; and (iii) when vein inflations are ablated, sensitivity to low frequency sounds is impaired. We propose that inflated veins contribute to low frequency hearing by impedance matching.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology LettersSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207