Acoustic analysis of airborne, underwater, and amphibious mother attraction calls by wild harbor seal pups (<i>Phoca vitulina</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pinnipeds have great potential for comparative studies of mother—pup recognition due to the contrasting maternal strategies adopted by otariids and phocids. Typically, otariid mothers perform foraging trips during lactation, leaving their pups in the colony, whereas phocid mothers remain close by their pups during the entire nursing period. Unlike most phocids, harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) females forage during the nursing period, which exacerbates the need for effective mother—pup vocal recognition in this species. Individual differences and ontogeny-related changes in airborne and underwater harbor seal mother attraction calls were investigated. Acoustic differences between aerial and underwater components of amphibious pup calls were also assessed. Sixteen acoustic parameters were measured on 1,072 calls from 88 pups recorded during the 2011–2013 breeding seasons in the St. Lawrence Estuary, Canada. Discriminant function analysis (DFA) correctly assigned 42.6% and 44.2% of airborne and underwater calls, respectively, to individual pups. A majority of highly individualized acoustic parameters were affected by pup age and body length. These results indicated that harbor seal pup calls encode an individual signature that might allow recognition of young by mothers, in which case females must continuously learn their pup's changing voice throughout of the rearing period. The fundamental frequency, total duration, and frequency-modulation slopes were constant between aerial and underwater components of amphibious calls. This could facilitate females' memorization of these highly individualized acoustic parameters to identify their offspring's call in both media.
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 | 0.001 | 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".