MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997654631 · doi:10.7939/r3-hx61-bg94

Features of Male- and Female-Produced Song in Black-Capped Chickadees (Poecile Atricapillus) Change Between Seasons

2019· article· en· W2997654631 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberley A. Campbell, Stephanie Thunberg, Christopher B. Sturdy

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeasonal breederBiologyConsistency (knowledge bases)AttractionZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) are small, non-migratory songbirds that are commonly seen across much of North America. One of their primary vocalizations, the fee-bee song, has been well-documented in males and functions in both mate attraction and territory defense (Smith, 1991). Both of these functions are critical to fitness particularly in the spring during the breeding season, but less so during other times of the year. Use of this song by females has only recently been described and its function is not well understood (Hahn et al., 2013). In this experiment, we measured acoustic features related to frequency and duration of both male- and female-produced fee-bee songs that had been recorded at two times of the year (e.g., spring and fall). We found that male songs showed less variation overall in their acoustic measures than female songs across both seasons. We also found that songs produced in the spring had less overall variation than those produced in the fall, regardless of sex of the producer. This suggests that fee-bee songs are more critical in the spring than fall, and also suggests that male song consistency may be more important than female song consistency. More research into the use and function of female song may elucidate these sex differences.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207