Vocal distinctiveness of the Red Crossbill (<i>Loxia curvirostra</i>) on the island of Newfoundland, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ten vocal types of Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) are recognized in North America.Little is known about this species' vocalizations on the island of Newfoundland, where the subspecies L. c. percna (Bent 1912) was described on the basis of study skins collected in a single year from one area; subsequently a distinctive vocal type was proposed on the basis of one sound recording.We made field recordings (~1000 min) of Red Crossbill vocalizations in Newfoundland to describe vocalizations and compare them with vocal types recognized elsewhere in North America.One class of call (''flight call''; class I call hereafter) was distinctive, and discriminant analysis distinguished 98% of Newfoundland class I calls from mainland North American and European samples.Class I calls of 5 (out of 83) Newfoundland birds resembled recognized vocal types from mainland North America.Other call classes (''excitement/alarm'' and ''chitter'') of Newfoundland birds also differed from mainland North American samples.We conclude that several vocal types of Red Crossbill, one of which may represent L. c. percna, occur in Newfoundland.Samples from other areas are needed to determine whether the distinctive vocal type in insular Newfoundland (a) represents L. c. percna and (b) is restricted to Newfoundland or also occurs in other areas such as Cape Breton Island.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".