Data from: Field crickets compensate for unattractive static long-distance call components by increasing dynamic signalling effort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of multiple sexual signals presents a dilemma since individuals selecting a mate should pay attention to the most honest signal and ignore the rest; however, multiple signals may evolve if, together, they provide more information to the receiver than either one would alone. Static and dynamic signals, for instance, can act as multiple messages, providing information on different aspects of signaller quality that reflect condition at different time scales. While the nature of static signals makes them difficult or impossible for individuals to augment, dynamic signals are much more susceptible to temporary fluctuations in effort. We investigated whether male Texas field crickets, Gryllus texensis, that produce unattractive static signals compensate by dynamically increasing their calling effort. Our findings lend partial support to the compensation hypothesis, as males that called at unattractive carrier frequencies (a static trait) spent more time calling each night (a dynamic trait). Interestingly, this finding was most pronounced in males that called with attractive pulse characteristics (static traits) but did not occur in males that called with unattractive pulse characteristics. Males that signalled with unattractive pulse characteristics (duration and pause) spent less time calling through the night. Our correlative findings on wild caught males suggest that only males that signal with attractive pulse characteristics may be able to afford to pay the costs of both trait exaggeration and increased calling effort to compensate for poor carrier frequencies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.011 |
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".