MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240818165 · doi:10.1093/auk/122.1.175

Sex Differences in Singing and Duetting Behavior of Neotropical Rufous-and-White Wrens (Thryothorus Rufalbus)

2005· article· en· W4240818165 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daniel J. Mennill, Sandra L. Vehrencamp

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Auk · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlabama AudubonHill's Pet NutritionNational Institutes of HealthNational Geographic Society
KeywordsRepertoireSingingBiologySongbirdWhite (mutation)Animal communicationZoologyCantoCommunicationDemographyEcologyPsychologyLinguisticsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In many tropical bird species, males and females sing together in coordinated vocal duets. Although studies of duetting present unique opportunities for understanding conflict and cooperation between the sexes, very few investigations describe the similarities and differences between male and female singing behaviors. Here, we present the first detailed account of the singing behavior of Rufous-and-white Wrens (Thryothorus rufalbus), a resident tropical duetting songbird. Male and female songs share a similar structure, yet show pronounced sex differences. Male songs have lower frequency characteristics and more repeated trill syllables, and often sound louder than female songs. Males sing more than females, and only males show elevated song output at dawn. Both males and females have song repertoires. Males have an average repertoire size of 10.8 song types, whereas females have a significantly smaller average repertoire size of 8.5 song types. Although males share proportionately more of their song types with neighbors than females do, both sexes share more song types with nearby individuals than with distant individuals. Breeding partners combine their solo songs to create duets. Duets assume a variety of different forms, ranging from simple, overlapping male and female songs to complex combinations of multiple male and female songs. Most duets (73%) are created by females responding to male song. Males respond to female-initiated duets with shorter latencies than when females respond to male-initiated duets. Each pair sings certain combinations of song types in duets more often than can be explained by random association, which demonstrates that Rufous-and-white Wrens have duet types. The most common duet type was different for each pair. Our results show that Rufous-and-white Wrens have pronounced sex differences in song structure, singing activity, repertoire size, repertoire sharing, and duetting behavior. Diferencias entre Sexos en el Canto y Comportamiento de Dueto en Thryothorus rufalbus

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations42
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AukSame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207