MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3217725678 · doi:10.1121/10.0008184

Masking escape in killer whales, stereotypical call design as a noise impact reduction strategy

2021· article· en· W3217725678 on OpenAlexaff
Harald Yurk, Caitlin O’Neill, Rianna E. Burnham, Christie Morrison, Svein Vagle

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbient noise levelWhaleHuman echolocationNoise (video)Masking (illustration)Variation (astronomy)RepertoireAcousticsDivergence (linguistics)Adaptation (eye)HabitatBioacousticsEcologyComputer scienceBiologyPhysicsSound (geography)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Killer whale call repertoires appear to remain relatively stable over generations because call design is considered socially transmitted between generations. Transmission errors during learning may be responsible for new call designs and repertoire size increases. Call and repertoire divergence may also be the result of adaptation to noisy environments. Temporal and spatial ambient noise variation occurs naturally in killer whale habitats and spans across the auditory frequency ranges of calls. Call components that vary in peak energy across frequency bands appear to escape auditory noise masking because peak amplitude variation per frequency is part of the stereotypical design of calls. As a result level variations in the noise spectrum rather than broadband noise dose may be the more relevant noise impact metrics for calls. Killer whale call design and repertoire divergence appears to reflect the naturally occurring variability in propagation of different frequencies. This may have led to repertoire variation among different populations allowing them to explore different acoustic niches. Presented are preliminary results from an ongoing study into call design influences on signal propagation under varying ambient noise conditions at different times of the year and different geographic locations and water depths within resident and Bigg’s killer whale habitat.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→