MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239608053 · doi:10.46867/ijcp.2016.29.00.16

Chickadee Behavioural Response to Varying Threat Levels of Predator and Conspecific Calls

2016· article· en· W4239608053 on OpenAlexaff
Jenna V. Congdon, Allison H. Hahn, Neil McMillan, Marc T. Avey, Christopher B. Sturdy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobbingPredatorPredationPsychologyZoologyEcologyBiologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chickadees produce many vocalizations, including chick-a-dee calls which they use as a mobbing call in the presence of predators. Previous research has shown that chickadees produce more D notes in their mobbing calls in response to high-threat predators compared to low-threat predators, and may perceive predator and corresponding mobbing vocalizations as similar. We presented black-capped chickadees with playback of high- and low-threat predator calls and conspecific mobbing calls, and non-threat heterospecific and reversed mobbing calls, to examine vocal and movement behavioural responses. Chickadees produced more chick-a-dee calls in response to playback of calls produced by a high-threat predator compared to calls produced by a low-threat predator, and to reversed high-threat mobbing calls compared to normal (i.e., non-reversed) high-threat mobbing calls. Chickadees also vocalized more in response to all playback conditions consisting of conspecific mobbing calls compared to a silent baseline period. The number of D notes that the subjects produced was similar to previous findings; chickadees produced approximately one to three D notes per call in response to low-threat mobbing calls, and produced more calls containing four to five D notes in response to high-threat mobbing calls, although this difference in the number of D notes per call was not significant. The difference in chickadees’ production of tseet calls across playback conditions approached significance as chickadees called more in response to conspecific mobbing calls, but not in response to heterospecific calls. General movement activity decreased in response to playback of conspecific-produced vocalizations, but increased in response to heterospecific-produced vocalizations, suggesting that chickadees may mobilize more in response to predator playback in preparation for a “fight or flight” situation. These results also suggest that chickadees may produce more mobbing calls in response to high-threat predator vocalizations as an attempt to initiate mobbing with conspecifics, while they produce fewer mobbing calls in response to a low-threat predator that a chickadee could outmaneuver.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative PsychologySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207