MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005156925 · doi:10.1139/z05-041

Breeding vocalizations of the piping plover (<i>Charadrius melodus</i>): structure, diversity, and repertoire organization

2005· article· en· W2005156925 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Ha‐Cheol Sung, Edward H. Miller, Stephen P. Flemming

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersParks CanadaAmerican Ornithologists' Union
KeywordsCharadriusRepertoirePloverBiologyVocal communicationVariation (astronomy)Evolutionary biologyZoologyAcousticsCommunicationEcologyPhysicsAstrophysicsHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied breeding vocalizations and the vocal repertoire of the endangered piping plover (Charadrius melodus Ord, 1824) to describe diversity of the species' non-learned vocalizations, provide a basis for comparative studies, and enable standardization of terminology and interpretation of vocal classes for management purposes. Adults have 14 call types and newly hatched chicks have three; these are underestimates of repertoire size because they represent breeding vocalizations only and are biased toward loud, easily recorded sounds. Vocalizations are structurally diverse: duration, ~10 ms to 1.5 s; peak frequency (adults), &lt;900 to &gt;3000 Hz; tonal to pulsed or noisy; narrow- to broad-band; and nonharmonic to harmonic. Vocalizations are higher in frequency in females than in males. High vocal diversity results from differential combination and sequencing of fairly simple acoustic attributes such as pulsing and frequency modulation, and from quantitative variation in such attributes. Homologies with other species of Charadriidae in acoustic traits of calls, call types, and organization (syntax) within calls and across call types are suggested. Acoustic characters at different organizational levels are highly conserved evolutionarily; hence, they seem to hold promise for phylogenetic analyses within the family.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations30
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207