Comparing methodologies for classification of zebra finch distance calls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bioacoustic analysis has been used for a variety of purposes including classifying vocalizations for biodiversity monitoring and understanding mechanisms of cognitive processes. A wide range of statistical methods, including various automated methods, have been used to successfully classify vocalizations based on species, sex, geography, and individual. A comprehensive approach focusing on identifying acoustic features putatively involved in classification is required for the prediction of features necessary for discrimination in the real world. Here, we used several classification techniques, namely discriminant function analyses (DFAs), support vector machines (SVMs), and artificial neural networks (ANNs), for sex-based classification of zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata) distance calls using acoustic features measured from spectrograms. We found that all three methods (DFAs, SVMs, and ANNs) correctly classified the calls to respective sex-based categories with high accuracy between 92 and 96%. Frequency modulation of ascending frequency, total duration, and end frequency of the distance call were the most predictive features underlying this classification in all of our models. Our results corroborate evidence of the importance of total call duration and frequency modulation in the classification of male and female distance calls. Moreover, we provide a methodological approach for bioacoustic classification problems using multiple statistical analyses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".