Whistle repertoire of captive bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The whistle repertoire of bottlenose dolphins has been poorly described in the literature, thus little information is known to support the hypothesis that whistles are used by dolphins to communicate. In this study, whistles emitted by four captive bottlenose dolphins housed in two aquaria in Mexico City were recorded to analyze the whistle repertoire and whistle emission rate for each aquarium. The whistle repertoire was described using human and automated categorizations. Results show that whistle emission rate and the whistle repertoire are both larger for the two dolphins that are more active and which are housed in the same aquarium. As for whistles shared in the repertoire of both aquaria, these are very few, probably because dolphins of the two aquaria were captured in different oceans and are of different ages, besides of the different activities that dolphins can perform in each aquarium. Additionally, all four dolphins could use similar whistles for a specific activity, like "swimming", while different whistles were used for another specific activity, like "observing". These results show that dolphins use whistles selectively, supporting the hypothesis that whistles may be used to communicate information for particular situations. [Work supported by PAPIIT, UNAM & CoNaCyT]
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".