MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2025738008 · doi:10.1121/1.4780995

Stereotyped calling patterns of a male Weddell seal

2005· article· en· W2025738008 on OpenAlexaff
Jack Terhune, Andrea Dell’Apa

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderwaterSeal (emblem)GeographyBiologyOceanographyGeologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Underwater calling behavior between breathing bouts of a (presumed) single adult male Weddell seal (Leptonychotes weddellii) was examined at Davis Station, Antarctica. Underwater calls and in-air breathing sounds were recorded on 1 and 8 December. Thirty-six postdive and 37 presurfacing sets of calls were analyzed. Dives were 461±259 s (mean ± S.D.). The seal called every 22.7±21.7 s. The first two calls after diving were at 15.6±9.3 and 33.3±9.7 s. The last two calls occurred at 38.8±32.0 and 22.7±20.1 s before surfacing. The first call after a dive was usually (29/36) a low-frequency growl. One of three patterns of 3–5 call-type sequences was made following 26 of 36 dives. A common four-call sequence was also recorded earlier in the breeding season at this location and was absent at four other distant breeding sites. The timing and call-type sequences of underwater vocalizations after a dive were highly stereotyped, while those before surfacing were not. Territorial males may call throughout each dive and use stereotyped call patterns to identify themselves. [Work supported by Australian Antarctic Division and NSERC.]

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→