Cervids with different vocal behavior demonstrate different viscoelastic properties of their vocal folds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors test the hypothesis that vocal fold morphology and biomechanical properties covary with species-specific vocal function. They investigate mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) vocal folds, building on, and extending data on a related cervid, the Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni). The mule deer, in contrast to the elk, is a species with relatively little vocal activity in adult animals. Mule deer and elk vocal folds show the typical three components of the mammalian vocal fold (epithelium, lamina propria and thyroarytenoid muscle). The vocal fold epithelium and the lamina propria were investigated in two sets of tensile tests. First, creep rupture tests demonstrated that ultimate stress in mule deer lamina propria is of the same magnitude as in elk. Second, cyclic loading tests revealed similar elastic moduli for the vocal fold epithelium in mule deer and elk. The elastic modulus of the lamina propria is also similar between the two species in the low-strain region, but differs at strains larger than 0.3. Sex differences in the stress-strain response, which have been reported for elk and human vocal folds, were not found for mule deer vocal folds. The laminae propriae in mule deer and elk vocal folds are comparatively large. In general, a thick and uniformly stiff lamina propria does not self-oscillate well, even when high subglottic pressure is applied. If the less stiff vocal fold seen in elk is associated with a differentiated lamina propria it would allow the vocal fold to vibrate at high tension and high subglottic pressure. The results of this study support the hypothesis that viscoelastic properties of vocal folds varies with function and vocal behavior.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".