Peer Review #1 of "Aggressive signaling among competing species of birds (v0.1)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aggressive interactions help individuals to gain access to and defend resources, but they can be costly, leading to increased predation risk, injury, or death.Signals involving sounds and color can allow birds to avoid the costs of intraspecific aggressive encounters, but we know less about agonistic signaling between species, where fights can be frequent and just as costly.Here, we review photographic and video evidence of aggressive interactions among species of birds (N = 337 interactions documenting the aggressive signals of 164 different bird species from 120 genera, 50 families, and 24 orders) to document how individuals signal in aggressive encounters among species, and explore whether these visual signals are similar to those used in aggressive encounters with conspecifics.Despite the diversity of birds examined, most aggressively signaling birds displayed weapons (bills, talons, wings) used in fighting and placed these weapons closest to their heterospecific opponent when signaling.Most species oriented their bodies and heads forward with their bills pointing towards their heterospecific opponent, often highlighting their face, throat, mouth, and bill.Many birds also opened their wings and/or tails, increasing their apparent size in displays, consistent with the importance of body size in determining behavioral dominance among species.Aggressive postures were often similar across species and taxonomic families.Exceptions included Accipitridae and Falconidae, which often highlighted their talons in the air, Columbidae, which often highlighted their underwings from the side, and Trochilidae, which often hovered upright in the air and pointed their fanned tail downward.Most species highlighted bright carotenoidbased colors in their signals, but highlighted colors varied across species and often involved multiple colors in combination (e.g., black, white, and carotenoid-based colors).Finally, birds tended to use the same visual signals in aggressive encounters with heterospecifics that they use in aggressive encounters with conspecifics, suggesting that selection from aggressive interactions may act on the same signaling traits regardless of competitor identity.
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 | 0.013 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.473 | 0.297 |
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".