Vocal Repertoires of Auklets (Alcidae: Aethiini): Structural Organization and Categorization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We categorized and quantified the complete vocal repertoires of breeding adult auklets (Aethiini, 5 species) in their breeding areas to provide a baseline for comparative study of the structure and function of vocalizations within this monophyletic group of seabirds. We recognized 22 call types across species and 3–5 call types for each species. Calls were characterized by one to five frequency modulated, harmonically rich note types arranged sequentially in varied combinations. Frequency attributes varied more than temporal attributes within and across species. Repertoires and display complexity of nocturnal and diurnal species did not differ consistently. We recognized two major forms of vocal display: alternating arrangement of note types (Cassin's Auklet [Ptychoramphus aleuticus] and Parakeet Auklet [Aethia psittacula]); and sequentially graded arrangement of note types (Least Auklet [A. pusilla] and Whiskered Auklet [A. pygmaea]). One species' repertoire (Crested Auklet [A. cristatella]) was composed of a mix of the two forms of display. There were vocal homologies in frequency modulation of notes, arrangement of notes, and note type composition of displays. Our analysis revealed vocal similarities between: (1) two species not normally grouped together (Cassin's and Parakeet auklets); and (2) Whiskered and Crested auklets, which have been suggested previously to be closely related.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".