Individual Distinctiveness in the Fine Structural Features and Repertoire Characteristics of the Songs of White‐eared Ground‐sparrows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Communication between social animals is often more effective when signals facilitate individual recognition. Two critical requirements for individual recognition are the occurrence of characteristics that are unique to each individual, and the consistency of these characteristics through time. In some animals, characteristics of acoustic signals are known to vary over time due to changes in a variety of factors, including physiological and environmental features. Such temporal variation requires careful evaluation when exploring the individual distinctiveness of animal signals. In this study, we evaluate individual distinctiveness in the songs of male white‐eared ground‐sparrows Melozone leucotis and the persistence of distinctive characteristics over time. We collected focal recordings from populations of banded ground‐sparrows during two consecutive breeding seasons, including multiple recording sessions within each breeding season. We evaluated individual distinctiveness in fine structural acoustic features of songs. We also extended our analysis to repertoire characteristics, focusing on whether the relative frequency of song type use may provide cues to individual identity. We found that each male white‐eared ground‐sparrow sang individually distinctive songs, although their fine structural features varied between recording sessions. We found the frequency with which males sang different song types was also individually distinctive, and this feature varied little between recording sessions. Receivers may be able to use these distinctive characteristics to differentiate individuals over extended time periods; this may be especially important for species that engage in long‐term social interactions, such as tropical birds that defend territories against rival conspecific animals throughout the year.
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".