The double vocal signature of crested penguins: is the identity coding system of rockhopper penguins <i>Eudyptes chrysocome</i> due to phylogeny or ecology?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parent‐offspring recognition systems are used in bird colonies to avoid misdirected parental care. In penguins, where the risk of confusion is particularly high, recognition is achieved by acoustic signals that constitute highly efficient vocal signatures. Comparisons between species from the Pygoscelis and Aptenodytes genera have revealed interspecific differences on the encoding of information within the signatures which correlate with the presence/absence of nests in the colonies. However a recent study of individual recognition in macaroni penguins Eudyptes chrysolophus revealed diversity within nest‐building species. This paper investigates whether the original and intermediate signature system found in macaroni penguins is shared by another species of Eudyptes , the rockhopper penguin E. chrysocome . Vocal signatures of rockhopper penguins were analysed and compared to macaroni penguins’. We used a methodology derived from the theory of information to determine which parameters of the call were likely to encode individual identity. Playbacks of modified calls in the field complemented the analyses, and parent‐chick reunions were compared between the two species. Our results reveal a similar double signature system within the Eudyptes genus, which integrates information simultaneously from the temporal and spectral domains. This double encoding is made through the tempo given by the successive syllables of the call and the harmonic content of the call. While it confirms the hypothesis that signatures are simpler in nest‐building species, this result reveals differences in the efficacies of signatures within this category. This suggests that other parameters such as the mean distance recognition should be considered to account for the differences in the encoding of the vocal signatures and in their resulting efficacies.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".