Note types and coding in Parid vocalizations: The<i>chick-a-dee</i>call of the boreal chickadee (<i>Poecile hudsonicus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important first step in characterizing a vocalization is to classify, describe, and measure the elements of that vocalization. Here, this methodology is employed to study the chick-a-dee call of the boreal chickadee (Poecile hudsonicus). The note types (A, B, C, D, and D(h)) in a sample of boreal chickadee calls are identified and described, spectral and temporal features of each note type are analyzed, and production phenomena in each note type are identified and quantified. Acoustic variability is compared across note types and individuals to determine potential features used for note-type and individual discrimination. Frequency measures appear to be the most useful features for identifying note types and individuals, though total duration may also be useful. Call syntax reveals that boreal chick-a-dee calls follow a general rule of note-type order, namely A-B-C-D(h)-D, and that any note type in this sequence may be repeated or omitted. This work provides a thorough description of the boreal chickadee chick-a-dee call and will serve as a foundation for future studies aimed at elucidating this call's functional significance within this species, as well as for studies comparing chick-a-dee calls across Poecile species.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".