Note types and coding in parid vocalizations. I: The chick-a-dee call of the black-capped chickadee (<i>Poecile atricapillus</i>)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chick-a-dee call of the black-capped chickadee, Poecile atricapillus (L., 1766), consists of four note types and is used in a wide variety of contexts including mild alarm, contact between mates, and for mobilizing members of winter flocks. Because note-type composition varies with context and because birds need to identify flock mates and individuals by their calls, it is important that birds are able to discriminate between note types and birds. Moreover, previous experiments have shown that black-capped chickadees are able to discriminate their four note types, but the acoustical basis of this process is still unknown. Here, we present the results of a bioacoustic analysis that suggests which acoustic features may be controlling the birds' perception of note types and of individual identity. Several acoustic features show high note type and individual specificity, but frequency and frequency modulation cues (in particular, those of the initial part of the note) appear more likely to be used in these processes. However, only future experiments testing the bird's perceptual abilities will determine which acoustic cues in particular are used in the discrimination of note types and in individual recognition.
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 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 it