Tonal vocalizations in the red wolf (<i>Canis rufus</i>)<i>:</i> Potential functions of nonlinear sound production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to further understanding of the function of nonlinear vocalizations in red wolves (Canis rufus) by examining the acoustic, structural, and contextual characteristics of nonlinear sounds as compared to linear sounds. Video recordings of captive wolves from a breeding facility were analyzed. The acoustic nature of sound units was consistent with that of other social canids. The sound units included high-frequency squeaks (2600-9500 Hz) and low-frequency wuhs (160-1600 Hz) occurring either as separate units or in combination as nonlinear units (squeak-wuh frequency jumps, biphonations, squeaks with sidebands) and frequency jumps within squeaks. These low-amplitude sounds occurred in trains of 1-30 units that were classified as squeak vocalizations (49%), wuh vocalizations (19%), and nonlinear vocalizations (any combination including one or more nonlinear units, 32%). Nonlinear vocalizations transitioned directionally from high-frequency units to mixed-frequency units which has implications for the study of sound production and function. Wolves squeaked most often when oriented toward others, implying a solicitation function, while wuh vocalizations were more common during social interactions. Nonlinear vocalizations occurred most often during penmate-play or when oriented toward neighbors, indicating that nonlinear sound production may signal an increase in arousal.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".