MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115725761 · doi:10.1111/jfb.14662

Acoustic homogeneity in the piranha <i>Serrasalmus maculatus</i>

2020· article· en· W3115725761 on OpenAlexaff
Xavier Raick, Rodney A. Rountree, Gregório Kurchevski, Francis Juanes, Alessia Huby, Alexandre Lima Godinho, Éric Parmentier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
KeywordsBiologyBioacousticsDrainage basinAmazon basinAmazon rainforestHomogeneity (statistics)Structural basinEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>ZoologyFisheryGeographyAcousticsCartographyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different studies suggest some social calls could be used in fish identification if their specificity is unambiguously assessed. Sounds of different populations of piranhas Serrasalmus maculatus Kner, 1858 were recorded to determine their homogeneity between rivers inside a single basin (Araguari and Grande River, upper Paraná River basin) and between separated basins (Amazon and Paraná basins). All fish from the different populations produced sounds with similar acoustic features. Consequently, the populations were not discernible based on individual sound characteristics. This high homogeneity between sounds from different populations indicates their usefulness for conservation projects using passive acoustic monitoring in piranhas. Moreover, it supports the use of acoustic features as complementary key characteristics in taxonomic studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207