Vocal duets in a nonpasserine: an examination of territory defence and neighbour–stranger discrimination in a neighbourhood of barred owls
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mated pairs of animals in many taxa coordinate their vocalizations into duets, yet most research on duetting has focused on songbirds. Here we examine the duetting behaviour of barred owls (Strix varia) by addressing three questions: (1) Do owl duets play a role in territorial interactions? (2) Do owls discriminate between duets of neighbours versus strangers? (3) Do duets play a role in extended communication among a neighbourhood of owls? We simulated territorial encounters by broadcasting duets of adjacent, territory-holding owls (neighbours) and distant owls (strangers). We assessed responses to playback using a 3.5-km transect of automated recording devices. We compared vocal activity during a pre-playback period and following both playback treatments for the focal pair, their neighbours, and more distant owls within the neighbourhood. After playback, focal owls gave significantly more duets, vocalized for a longer duration, and emphasized different call types compared to the pre-playback period, demonstrating that barred owls use duets in territory defence. Focal owls did not respond significantly differently to neighbours versus strangers. At the neighbourhood level, owls did not behave differently during silent pre-playback periods or post-playback periods. Our results suggest barred owl duets function primarily in immediate confrontations during territorial conflicts. © 2010 BRILL.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it