MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160626608 · doi:10.1525/cond.2010.090163

A Quantitative Description of the Vocalizations and Vocal Activity of the Barred Owl

2010· article· en· W2160626608 on OpenAlexafffund
Karan J. Odom, Daniel J. Mennill

Bibliographic record

VenueOrnithological Applications · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCornell Lab of OrnithologyFlorida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceUniversity of WindsorAssociation of Field OrnithologistsAmerican Ornithologists' Union
KeywordsSingingCommunicationAcousticsPsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Barred Owls (Strix varia) are highly vocal and perform a diverse array of vocalizations. They are often monitored by acoustic surveys, yet Barred Owl vocalizations and vocal behavior are poorly described. We present a detailed analysis of Barred Owl vocal behavior with four goals: (1) to provide a quantitative description of Barred Owl vocalizations, including those given within duets, (2) to examine diel variation in vocal output for multiple vocalizations, (3) to explore the use of vocalizations inside and outside of duets, and (4) to identify sex-specific vocal characteristics and discuss their utility in identifying an owl's sex. Adult Barred Owls produced 13 distinct vocalizations that could be assigned to call type on the basis of fine-structural measurements. Barred Owls vocalized throughout the day but were more vocal at night with peaks in vocal activity from 18:00 to 20:00 and 02:00 to 05:00. Most calls were produced throughout the night, but some (e.g., alarm calls) were more common at particular times. Two types of vocalizations were produced only within duets, and one type of vocalization occurred primarily outside duets. Calls of females were higher in pitch with longer terminal notes and more vibrato than those of males. Using these differences, cluster analysis assigned owls to two groups corresponding to predicted sex with 91% accuracy. We discuss possible functions of certain vocalizations and how understanding the vocal repertoire and sex differences of this species' acoustic signals will benefit behavioral studies and monitoring, including Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis) conservation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations66
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrnithological ApplicationsSame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207