Monotony and the Information Content of Richardson's Ground Squirrel (<i>Spermophilus richardsonii</i>) Repeated calls: Tonic Communication or Signal Certainty?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The repetition of elements within an alarm signal is commonly thought to ensure that receivers have detected that signal, or to promote residual vigilance in light of the dangerous circumstances prompting the signal's initial production (tonic communication). Beyond alerting others and maintaining that state of alertness, however, repetitive signal elements may be parsed so as to encode information about the nature of potential threats. To determine how call length and variation in intersyllable latency might prove informative in the repetitive alarm vocalizations of Richardson's ground squirrels (Spermophilus richardsonii), we conducted a field‐based playback experiment quantifying antipredator responses to manipulated alarm calls. Free‐living juvenile squirrels were exposed to playbacks of 12 syllable (long) and six syllable (short) calls with a constant (monotonous) or changing (variable) call rate. The length of calls had no significant effect on the behaviour of call recipients during and immediately after call production; however, call recipients showed greater vigilance after the playback of monotonous calls than after variable calls. The absence of a call length effect is not consistent with tonic communication in the strict sense; rather, enhanced responsiveness to monotonous relative to variable calls suggests that multiple syllables, and the emergent patterns of intersyllable latency, communicate information about response urgency or the distance to a predatory threat. Only monotonous calls convey those aspects with any certainty on the part of the signaller and hence are selectively attended to by receivers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".