MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027796021 · doi:10.1644/06-mamm-a-079r2.1

NORTH AMERICAN ELK BUGLE VOCALIZATIONS: MALE AND FEMALE BUGLE CALL STRUCTURE AND CONTEXT

2006· article· en· W2027796021 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. A. Feighny, Kurt E. Williamson, Jennifer A. Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiteit van AmsterdamUniversity of Northern Colorado
KeywordsCervus elaphusContext (archaeology)GeographyEcologyBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bugle calls of male North American elk (Cervus elaphus) are common sounds during fall in the Canadian and United States Rocky Mountains. In contrast, bugle calls of female elk are rarely heard. We quantified the acoustic structure of elk bugle calls, which is an essential 1st step to understanding of the function of the call. We also investigated whether motivation-structural rules apply to these long-distance calls. We measured male elk bugle calls in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, during autumn of 1998 and 1999 and we measured female elk bugle calls on 2 Colorado elk ranches (private establishments that raise elk for commercial purposes) during spring of 2001 and 2002. All bugle calls had 3 segments: on-glide, whistle, and off-glide. Male bugle calls were longer in duration than female bugle calls (P < 0.01). Bugle calls emitted in aggressive interactions had 4 or 5 low-frequency formants, resulting in harsher, wider bandwidth bugles (P < 0.001) compared to the tonal calls emitted in nonaggressive contexts, which lacked formants. Thus, elk bugle calls appear to conform to motivation-structural rules.

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 score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations67
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MammalogySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207