MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2064632917 · doi:10.1139/z00-182

New underwater and aerial vocalizations of captive harp seals (<i>Pagophilus groenlandicus</i>)

2001· article· en· W2064632917 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arturo Serrano

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepertoireBiologyVocal communicationCall durationHARPSeasonal breederFundamental frequencyDuration (music)Animal communicationEcologyCommunicationAcousticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pinnipeds are ecologically and socially diverse, attributes that are reflected in their systems of communication. The purpose of this investigation was to document the vocal repertoire and annual cycle of vocal activity in the harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus), a species that communicates mainly under water, but whose social and communicative systems outside the breeding season are poorly known. The repertoire comprised 18 vocal classes, or call types; 7 that had not been described previously are described here. Vocal activity varied seasonally and with time of day. Calls of low frequency and with few pulse repetitions were predominantly used outside the breeding season, and calls of high frequency and with a high number of pulse repetitions predominated in the breeding season. The new vocalizations described here differed in several ways from those described previously. First, calls were relatively brief, with an average duration of 1.75 s (except call types 22 and 23, which averaged >2 s in duration). Second, some calls differed in mean fundamental frequency, the average being 677 Hz. Call types 22 and 23 differed the most, with an average of 838 Hz. The vocal repertoire described previously comprise calls with a fundamental frequency of approximately 400–500 Hz. Third, call types 22 and 25 differed from the rest of the vocalizations. The mean maximum frequency of call types 22 and 25 was 3.4 kHz, while the mean maximum frequency of the other call types is around 7.7 kHz.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations21
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→