Patterns of vocal divergence in a group of non-oscine birds (auklets; Alcidae, Charadriiformes)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Question: Are phylogenetic relationships the major determinant of vocal relationships in non-oscine birds (birds that do not have a learning component in the vocalization)? Background: Both environmental variables and phylogenetic affinities can affect vocalizations. Unlearned vocalizations are characteristics of most non-oscine bird families, which have a relatively less-complex syrinx and vocalizations. Organism: A monophyletic group of underground-nesting seabirds (auklets: Aethiini, Alcidae, Charadriiformes) from the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, USA. Methods: We mapped vocal characters (28 acoustic and 10 syringeal) from total repertoires of all members of the tribe Aethiini onto a molecular phylogeny to compare the relative influence of phylogeny and breeding habitat on vocal divergence. Conclusion: Phylogeny, visual display, and ecological factors have contributed to vocal divergence in this clade. Temporal attributes and syringeal attributes of the acoustics of vocalization showed high congruence with phylogeny. Frequency attributes, which are affected by environmental variables, showed low congruence, and therefore high homoplasy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".