MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161423548 · doi:10.1676/12-087.1

Geographical Variation In Songs of A Suboscine Passerine, the Alder Flycatcher ( <i>Empidonax alnorum</i> )

2013· article· en· W2161423548 on OpenAlexaff
Scott F. Lovell, M. Ross Lein

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wilson Journal of Ornithology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPasserineFlycatcherRange (aeronautics)Variation (astronomy)Geographic variationGeographyEcologyUnivariateDiscriminant function analysisHabitatBiologyZoologyMultivariate statisticsDemographyStatisticsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there is a large body of literature dealing with the nature of geographic variation in the songs of birds, few studies have examined such variation across the entire range of species of suboscine birds. We measured time and frequency characteristics of songs of Alder Flycatchers (Empidonax alnorum) from six regions spanning almost the entire range of the species, from Alaska to Maine. Both univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated significant differences in song characteristics among regions, and discriminant function analysis classified 69% of songs to the correct region. We found no relationship between geographic separation and magnitude of difference in songs among regions—songs of birds from some widely-separated regions were more similar than they were to songs of birds from neighboring regions. We argue that these regional differences have a genetic basis, but the pattern of variation does not appear to be consistent with a simple “isolation by distance” model. The variation may reflect differing adaptation to optimize acoustic transmission in varying habitats across the range. However, more detailed studies, including examination of genetic variation among populations, are required to test such suggestions rigorously.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Wilson Journal of OrnithologySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207