The effect of schedules of reinforcement on the composition of spontaneous and evoked black-capped chickadee calls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Songbirds often modify elements of their songs or calls in particular social situations (e.g. song matching, flock convergence, etc.) but whether adult individuals also make vocal modifications in response to abiotic environmental factors (e.g. food availability) is relatively unknown. In the present study we test whether two different schedules of food reinforcement, fixed ratio continuous reinforcement and variable ratio partial reinforcement, cause adult black-capped chickadees to change the structure of their chick-a-dee calls. We also examine how these calls differ in two contexts: being alone versus when experiencing an alarming event. Wild-caught black-capped chickadees were housed in isolation to prevent social interaction and recorded weekly for seven weeks. Baseline recordings on week one show that calls given alone differed from those given during an alarming event in both note type composition and frequency (i.e. pitch). Calls also changed over time between birds on the two different schedules of reinforcement. In addition, birds on different reinforcement schedules responded differently during the two recording conditions. Our results suggest that call characteristics can be modified rapidly and may reflect abiotic environmental conditions. If call structure varies consistently with particular abiotic environmental conditions, much can be gained from bioacoustic analyses of calls from wild birds. However, vocal patterns must be consistent across dialects, and we must disentangle vocal changes due to the abiotic environment from those due to social interaction. Further research is needed from natural populations and across multiple regions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".