Western North Atlantic humpback whale fall and spring acoustic repertoire: Insight into onset and cessation of singing behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humpback whale songs have been described worldwide and studies exploring non-song vocal behavior continue to expand; however, studies on the transition periods when whales shift to and from the seasonal behavioral state of singing are lacking and may be potentially informative regarding the proximal factors controlling the onset and offset of humpback whale male singing. Acoustic recorders collected data off eastern Canada continuously from the Bay of Fundy in the fall of 2015 and near-continuously off northeast Nova Scotia in the spring of 2016. Humpback whale acoustic occurrence and behavior were identified by systematically reviewing a subset of acoustic recordings for presence before analyzing the highest quality recordings for behavior. The onset of singing in the fall was gradual over a period of about three weeks with an intermediate form, termed "song fragment," occurring prior to full songs. In comparison, singing in the spring seemed to end abruptly with few song fragments. Song fragments could be produced by juveniles learning to sing for the first time or mature males preparing for breeding activities prior to migrating to southern breeding grounds. The authors propose an alternative hypothesis that the timing and manner of transitions could be driven by physiological processes similar to those documented in songbirds.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".