MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254656599 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/3knj9

Zebra finches go wild! Experimental cultural evolution of birdsong.

2019· preprint· en· W4254656599 on OpenAlexaff
Adriana Diez, Scott A. MacDougall‐Shackleton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImitationZEBRA (computer)SingingBiologyCommunicationMimicryEvolutionary biologyZoologyPsychologyAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vocal learning in songbirds is guided by experience and experience-independent factors. Previously, lineages of zebra finches founded by isolate-reared tutors showed cultural evolution to wild-type song features. This suggests that biases lead to selective imitation even in the absence of wild-type song. We hypothesized that cultural evolution of song depends on both experience-independent biases and the tutor songs available. We predicted that songs more distant from wild-type would take longer to culturally evolve toward wild-type features. We bred zebra finches in three groups of lineages in which offspring of each generation served as tutors for the next. Lineages were founded with males singing wild-type song, isolate song, or heterospecific song. The two experimental lineages exhibited rapid cultural evolution of song with many features converging to wild-type within two generations. However the rate of change differed depending on song features measured, and took longer for lineages founded with heterospecific song.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207