MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612681898 · doi:10.46867/ijcp.2017.30.01.08

Call Usage Learning by a Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) in a Categorical Matching Task

2017· article· en· W2612681898 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Valeria Vergara, Lance Barrett‐Lennard

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsVancouver Aquarium
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCategorizationPsychologyContext (archaeology)CommunicationRepertoireMatching (statistics)Cognitive psychologySpeech recognitionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceGeographyAcousticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to modify the structure and context of vocalizations through learning plays a key role in the social interactions of many species. The investigation of categorical matching, an aspect of contextual vocal learning, is the first step toward determining how contextual learning plays a role in the use, comprehension, and categorization of sounds in the wild. To this end, we conducted a study at the Vancouver Aquarium to test the ability of a juvenile female beluga, Qila, to respond to playbacks of two types of in-air beluga calls with vocalizations that matched the category of call played (a scream, which is a vocalization type shaped over time with reinforcement and not part of this species'natural repertoire, and a pulse-train, a natural call category). We first tested Qila with random sequences of the same version of the two vocalizations with which she had been trained. Her overall success in matching all playback stimuli was above chance but not statistically so (66%). She had more difficulty matching screams (54% success) than pulse trains (80% success). We next played random sequences of six novel pulse-trains and seven novel screams, which Qila had not been trained with. She responded correctly to the set of novel stimuli of both call types in 64% of the trials, a success rate that did not differ statistically from chance. Again, she had more difficulty matching screams (55% success), relative to pulse trains (74% success). These results indicate that Qila successfully matched only pulse trains, the class that is part of this species’ natural repertoire. Her poor performance on matching screams might be partly explained by a difficulty to perceive categorically a signal that lacks a function in the natural repertoire of belugas.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative PsychologySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207