The squeaking vocalization of grey wolves (Canis lupus): individuality in a close-range affiliative mammalian vocalisation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wolves ( Canis lupus ) frequently use the close-range squeaking vocalization, a soft, multi-unit, high-pitched tonal vocalisation. We examined the social and movement contexts of the occurrence and acoustic characteristics of squeaking from videotapes of pack-reared, pack-living captive wolves living in semi-natural conditions at the Canadian Centre for Wolf Research over a three-year period. We only examined squeaking vocalisations for which the sender and potential receiver(s) could be determined. Wolves squeaked in many contexts, especially when approaching other wolves in prosocial and food contexts. Some wolves squeaked more than others. Acoustically, squeaking vocalisations were individually identifiable, primarily through frequency characteristics. Contextual use suggests that squeaking conveys the friendly motivation of an approaching wolf and in aggressive situations, a motivation to defuse or decrease aggression. This close-range vocalisation may play an important role in controlling and coordinating social interactions within the pack.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it