MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032275495 · doi:10.1121/1.2713726

Characteristics of whistles from resident bottlenose dolphins (<i>Tursiops truncatus</i>) in southern Brazil

2007· article· en· W2032275495 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre de Freitas Azevedo, Alvaro M. Oliveira, Luciano Dalla Rosa

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroIdea WildUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroCetacean Society International
KeywordsBottlenose dolphinHuman echolocationGeographyFisheryAcousticsBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known of the whistles produced by bottlenose dolphins in the South Atlantic Ocean. A total of 788 whistles were recorded from free-ranging bottlenose dolphins in Patos Lagoon estuary, southern Brazil. The mean number of whistles emitted per minute per animal was 0.8. Bottlenose dolphins emitted a varied repertoire of whistles, in which those with more than one inflection point were the most frequent and there was no predominance of ascending or descending whistles. Whistles recorded had a great frequency range, between 1.2 and 22.3 kHz. Whistle duration was 553.3 (+/- 393.9 ms) and 66.6% of the whistles lasted < 800 ms. Differences in the mean values of the whistles' characters were found between this study and other values previously reported for Tursiops. Bottlenose dolphins in the Patos Lagoon estuary emitted repeated whistle contours and individuals may be sharing some whistle types, as it has been suggested for Tursiops.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations54
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207