MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981383411 · doi:10.1037/0735-7036.114.4.357

Call-note discriminations in black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus).

2000· article· en· W1981383411 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher B. Sturdy, Leslie S. Phillmore, Ronald G. Weisman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of comparative psychology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)CommunicationPsychologyCognitive psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioacousticians (M.S. Ficken, S. R. Ficken, & S. R. Witken, 1978) classified black-capped chickadee call notes from the chick-a-dee call complex into 4 note types (A, B, C, and D) identified from sound spectrograms. In Experiment 1, chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) learned operant auditory discriminations both within and between the 4 note types but learned the between note-type discrimination significantly faster. In Experiment 2, when the original, unrewarded between-category exemplars were replaced with novel, rewarded exemplars of these same categories, chickadees showed transfer of inhibitory stimulus control to the novel exemplars. In Experiment 3, when novel exemplars were replaced by the original exemplars, chickadees showed propagation of positive stimulus control back to the original exemplars. This evidence suggests that chickadees and bioacousticians accurately sort conspecific call notes into the same open-ended categories (R. J. Herrnstein, 1990).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of comparative psychologySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207