Note types and coding in parid vocalizations. III: The chick-a-dee call of the Carolina chickadee (<i>Poecile carolinensis</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species of the genus Poecile Kaup, 1829 (the chickadees) are well suited to comparative studies of acoustic communication because their songs and calls occur in similar contexts and are acoustically similar. Here we provide careful, reliable descriptions and spectrographic exemplars for seven note types observed in the chick-a-dee calls of the Carolina chickadee, Poecile carolinensis (Audubon, 1834). The note types include A, C, and D notes similar to those found in the chick-a-dee calls of the black-capped chickadee, Poecile atricapillus (L., 1766), a complex of three B-note subtypes (B1, B2, and B3) and a rare note type previously identified as high-tee-chick. In common with black-capped chickadees, the organization of note types in Carolina chickadees follows a stringent syntax; the position of note types within a call is fixed. In contrast with black-capped chickadees, the chick-a-dee call syntax of the Carolina chickadee includes a B-note complex composed of three acoustically distinct subtypes of B notes, and follows a strict syntax: A→(B1→B2→B3)→C→D. Analysis of call variability suggests that the B-note complex (in particular, the most commonly sung note, B2) and the D note may provide reliable cues for species and individual recognition.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".