MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Individual vocal production in a sperm whale (<i>Physeter macrocephalus</i>) social unit

2010· article· en· W2108112408 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler M. Schulz, Hal Whitehead, Shane Gero, Luke Rendell

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Mammal Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSperm whaleCodaBiologyGroup identificationJuvenileZoologyCetaceaEcologyPsychologySocial psychologyAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The vocal repertoires of group‐living animals may communicate individual or group identity. Female and juvenile sperm whales live in long‐term social units that can be assigned to vocal clans based on the pattern of clicks in coda vocalizations. An unusual set of circumstances allowed us to record the vocalizations of photo‐identified individuals within a single social unit over a 41 d period. Using click interpulse intervals, we were able to assign codas to individuals and investigate coda production at the individual level within a social unit for the first time. Adult females in the unit vocalized at approximately equal rates. A calf and juvenile, both male, vocalized less often than the adult females. Repertoires were indistinguishable for all unit members apart from a mother and her calf, which possessed significantly different repertoires—even from one another. We suggest that similarity among the coda repertoires of most unit members indicates a function in advertising unit identity. In contrast, the distinctive repertoires of the calf and its mother may facilitate reunions between these whales. We hypothesize that sperm whales may be able to vary their vocal repertoires as their reproductive status alters the trade‐off between the benefits of individual and group identification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations52
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Mammal ScienceSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207