MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152009322 · doi:10.1121/1.3628343

Development of a contact call in black-capped chickadees (<i>Poecile atricapillus</i>) hand-reared in different acoustic environments

2011· article· en· W2152009322 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren M. Guillette, Laurie L. Bloomfield, Emily R. Batty, Michael R. W. Dawson, Christopher B. Sturdy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsAlgoma UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSound productionZoologyEcologyBiologyCommunicationAcousticsPsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tseet contact call, common to black-capped (Poecile atricapillus) and mountain chickadees (P. gambeli), is the most frequently produced vocalization of each species. Previous work has characterized the tseet call of black-capped and mountain chickadees from different geographic locations in terms of nine acoustic features. In the current study, using similar methods, the tseet call of black-capped chickadees that were hand reared with either conspecifics, heterospecifics (mountain chickadees), or in isolation from adult chickadees are described. Analysis of call features examined which acoustic features were most affected by rearing environment, and revealed that starting frequency and the slope of the descending portion of the tseet call differed between black-capped chickadees reared with either conspecific or heterospecific adults. Birds reared in isolation from adults differed from the other hand-reared groups on almost every acoustic feature. Chickadee tseet calls are more individualized when they are reared with adult conspecifics or heterospecifics compared to chickadees that are reared in isolation from adults. The current results suggest a role of learning in this commonly used contact call.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.225 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207