MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017323113 · doi:10.1080/09524622.2001.9753463

EASILY MEASURED CALL ATTRIBUTES CAN DETECT VOCAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WEDDELL SEALS FROM TWO AREAS

2001· article· en· W2017323113 on OpenAlexaff
John M. Terhune, S. R. HEALEY, Harry R. Burton

Bibliographic record

VenueBioacoustics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioacousticsDiscriminant function analysisVocal communicationGeographyAcousticsCommunicationMathematicsStatisticsPsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Underwater vocalisations of Weddell seals Leptonychotes weddellii were recorded approximately 1400 km apart at Casey and Davis, Antarctica. Recordings were made during the 1992 and 1997 breeding seasons at Davis and during the 1997 season at Casey. Two observers independently analysed four attributes (start and end frequency, duration and number of elements) of narrow bandwidth calls from each location and time. There were few observer differences when the calls were grouped into four broad types (Trills, Descending Whistles, Ascending Whistles and Mews). Ascending Whistles and Mews were rare at Casey but common at Davis. Descending Whistles occurred significantly more often at Davis. Except for Trills, discriminant function analyses indicated less variation between the call attributes at Davis in 1992 and 1997 than between either of the Davis data sets and that from Casey. Vocalisation differences between Weddell seals from different areas can be detected by measuring common attributes of narrow bandwidth calls.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations10
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioacousticsSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207