Beluga whale,<i>Delphinapterus leucas</i>, vocalizations from the Churchill River, Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classification of animal vocalizations is often done by a human observer using aural and visual analysis but more efficient, automated methods have also been utilized to reduce bias and increase reproducibility. Beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas, calls were described from recordings collected in the summers of 2006-2008, in the Churchill River, Manitoba. Calls (n=706) were classified based on aural and visual analysis, and call characteristics were measured; calls were separated into 453 whistles (64.2%; 22 types), 183 pulsed∕noisy calls (25.9%; 15 types), and 70 combined calls (9.9%; seven types). Measured parameters varied within each call type but less variation existed in pulsed and noisy call types and some combined call types than in whistles. A more efficient and repeatable hierarchical clustering method was applied to 200 randomly chosen whistles using six call characteristics as variables; twelve groups were identified. Call characteristics varied less in cluster analysis groups than in whistle types described by visual and aural analysis and results were similar to the whistle contours described. This study provided the first description of beluga calls in Hudson Bay and using two methods provides more robust interpretations and an assessment of appropriate methods for future studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".