Data from: Singing behaviour of Ruby-crowned Kinglets (Regulus calendula) in relation to time-of-day, time-of-year, and social context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observational field studies provide insight on the multifunctional nature of birdsong. For example, if song production were limited to pre-fertilization, then that would suggest a mate attraction function. If it were used throughout the breeding season and in response to intruding males, then that would suggest a territorial defence function. In the present study, we determined the daily and seasonal singing patterns of male Ruby-crowned Kinglets (Regulus calendula) in Labrador, Canada, using microphone arrays in two breeding seasons. Using a playback experiment, we simulated a territorial intrusion to compare the structure of songs produced while defending a territory to the structure of songs produced during solo and contest singing. Singing peaked in the early part of the breeding season and then declined continuously for the remainder of the season, which suggests that the songs function in mate attraction. Singing peaked 2-3 h after dawn, and then declined steadily until it stopped at 2200 h. Some nocturnal singing was observed, but no dawn singing was observed. A high probability of signal overlap by heterospecific songs at dawn would hinder signal recognition and explain the observed delay in peak singing activity. Vocal responses to playback suggested a function in territory defence. However, there were no significant differences in the duty cycle, frequency modulation, and bandwidth of songs in relation to the context of song production, though songs were shorter in the intrusion context than during solo singing. Overall, the study provides the first quantitative description of the effects of time of day, time of year, and social context on singing behaviour in this understudied species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".