MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CLICK CHARACTERISTICS OF NORTHERN BOTTLENOSE WHALES (<i>HYPEROODON AMPULLATUS</i>)

2002· article· en· W2151614282 on OpenAlexaff
Sascha K. Hooker, Hal Whitehead

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Mammal Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsHuman echolocationCetaceaSperm whaleAmplitudeBioacousticsPredationWhaleAcousticsGeographyGeologyBiologyFisheryPhysicsEcologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract Sounds produced by northern bottlenose whales ( Hyperoodon ampullatus ) recorded in the Gully, a submarine canyon off Nova Scotia, consisted predominately of clicks. In 428 min of recordings no whistles were heard which could unequivocally be attributed to bottlenose whales. There were two major types of click series, initially distinguished by large differences in received amplitude. Loud clicks (produced by nearby whales socializing at the surface) were rapid, with short and variable interclick intervals (mean 0.07 sec; CV 71%). The frequency spectra of these were variable and often multimodal, with peak frequencies ranging between 2 and 22 kHz (mean 11 kHz, CV 59%). Clicks received at low amplitude (produced by distant whales, presumably foraging at depth) had more consistent interclick intervals (mean 0.40 sec, CV 12.5%), generally unimodal frequency spectra with a mean peak frequency of 24 kHz (CV 7%) and 3 dB bandwidth of 4 kHz. Echolocation interclick intervals may reflect the approximate search distance of an animal, in this case 300 m, comparable to that found for sperm whales. The relationship between click frequency and the size of object being investigated, suggests that 24 kHz would be optimal for an object of approximately 6 cm or more, consistent with the size range of their squid prey.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.197 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations44
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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