MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2010292730 · doi:10.1139/z07-114

Male sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) coda production and coda-type usage depend on the presence of conspecifics and the behavioural context

2008· article· en· W2010292730 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexandros Frantzis, Paraskevi Alexiadou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVodafone FoundationOracleDirectorate for Biological SciencesInternational Fund for Animal Welfare
KeywordsCodaSperm whaleContext (archaeology)BiologyZoologyAcousticsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sperm whale ( Physeter macrocephalus L., 1758 (= Physeter catodon L., 1758)) codas serve a communication function, but the message they carry remains unknown. Very few codas and extremely few coda types are available from males. For 7 years we studied the coda occurrence and the coda types produced by 15 males in different behavioural and encounter contexts. Of the 67 encounters, 615 codas were produced by nonsolitary males. Codas occurred in 60% of the nonsolitary encounters and 36% of the dive cycles. Four hundred and ninety codas have been categorized into 8 coda families and 25 distinctive coda types. Both the coda type used and the dive cycle phase in which codas occurred strongly depended on the behavioural context. This is the first time that coda types have been associated with particular behavioural contexts. The “Three plus” family coda types were mainly used by ascending or descending whales in feeding dive cycles. The “Regular” and “Progressive” families were used almost exclusively by interacting whales. The “Root” coda family was used exclusively at surface, mainly in altered dive cycles. The coda types used in these three behavioural contexts seem to carry different messages and are proposed to be named “dive cycle codas”, “social codas”, and “alarm codas”, respectively.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations27
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→