A Quantitative Description of the Vocalizations and Vocal Activity of the Barred Owl
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it