An investigation of sex differences in acoustic features in black-capped chickadee (<i>Poecile atricapillus</i>) <i>chick-a-dee</i> calls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex differences have been identified in a number of black-capped chickadee vocalizations and in the chick-a-dee calls of other chickadee species [i.e., Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis)]. In the current study, 12 acoustic features in black-capped chickadee chick-a-dee calls were investigated, including both frequency and duration measurements. Using permuted discriminant function analyses, these features were examined to determine if any features could be used to identify the sex of the caller. Only one note type (A notes) classified male and female calls at levels approaching significance. In particular, a permuted discriminant function analysis revealed that the start frequency of A notes best allowed for categorization between the sexes compared to any other acoustic parameter. This finding is consistent with previous research on Carolina chickadee chick-a-dee calls that found that the starting frequency differed between male- and female-produced A notes [Freeberg, Lucas, and Clucas (2003). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113, 2127-2136]. Taken together, these results and the results of studies with other chickadee species suggest that sex differences likely exist in the chick-a-dee call, specifically acoustic features in A notes, but that more complex features than those addressed here may be associated with the sex of the caller.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".