The Variability and Malleability of Frog Call-Timing Mechanisms are Neglected in Traditional Call-Timing Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Males of many insect and anuran species send courtship calls to females from within crowded chorusing aggregations. Despite large phylogenetic distances between insects and frogs, many convergences in communication behavior are evident due to similar selection pressures arising when competing acoustically within choruses. Consequently, mechanistic call-timing models and theoretical frameworks originally derived from work on synchronizing insects have been applied fruitfully to alternating frogs. However, despite such similarities, there exist extensive differences in the details of the communication ecologies and nervous systems of these taxa, suggesting interesting differences may have been overshadowed by these broad similarities. Here, we synthesize recent findings regarding the call-timing mechanisms of túngara frogs, a species showing flexible calling interaction patterns across varied chorusing environments. Based on these findings, and hints present in other frogs, we suggest that the unique demands arising within the dense choruses frogs form have selected for call-timing mechanisms whose parameters are highly flexible, and malleable moment-to-moment in response to complex stimulation patterns arising in varied acoustic environments. Such fine-scale malleability and responsiveness to external stimulation are neglected in traditional theoretical models of call-timing mechanisms, possibly because the resulting variability would be detrimental to the highly structured interaction patterns of the synchronizing insects from which much of this work derives. Though further experiments are needed to fully vet our broader claims, we hope to inspire researchers to consider previously neglected factors influencing call-timing responses and chorusing dynamics, and to complement the impressive work on similarities across chorusing taxa with additional details on finer differences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".