MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Importance of Frequency and Temporal Song Matching in Black‐Capped Chickadees: Evidence from Interactive Playback

2002· article· en· W2121317320 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMatching (statistics)CONTESTCommunicationPsychologyBiologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Song‐type matching during territorial contests may allow males of some bird species to direct their signal to a particular receiver. By matching the song‐type and also responding immediately to a rival (temporal matching), a signalling male may indicate his willingness to escalate the contest. Black‐capped chickadees ( Poecile atricapilla ) sing a single song‐type, but are able to sing this song over a wide range of absolute frequencies. By using interactive playback to instigate and control the level of matching during trials, we investigated whether matching the frequency and the temporal patterning of song escalates contests. Males that were matched for both the frequency and the temporal pattern of their songs during trials escalated contests more than males that were not matched, while males that were only matched temporally had an intermediate response. During trials that consisted of temporal matching only, focal males often shifted frequency to match the playback. Our results confirm that frequency matching and temporal matching using a single song‐type allows graded signalling during aggressive interactions in chickadees.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.278 · 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