MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395668234 · doi:10.1093/cz/zoae021

The sound of fear is heritable

2024· article· en· W4395668234 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel T. Blumstein, Natalie Vu, Megan N. Edic, Linh N. Vo, Julien G. A. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Zoology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSchool of Life Sciences and Biotechnology Division of Life Sciences, Korea UniversityUniversity of California, Los AngelesNational Geographic SocietyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSound (geography)PsychologyEvolutionary biologyBiologyAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nonlinearity and fear hypothesis predicts that highly aroused vocal mammals and birds produce vocalizations (notably alarm calls and screams) which contain a variety of nonlinear phenomena (NLP). Such vocalizations often sound "noisy" because vocal production systems are over-blown when animals are highly aroused. While much is known about the conditions under which animals produce vocalizations containing NLP and how species respond to them, there is little research about the heritability of such behavioral traits. Using the quantitative genetic animal model, we estimated the genetic basis of "noise" in alarm calls produced by females and found significant heritability in call entropy-our measure of the noisiness. About 9% of the variance in noisiness can be accounted for by genetic differences. Taken together, these findings suggest that the degree to which marmots produce noisy calls is modestly heritable and can be thus subject to further evolution via natural selection.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent ZoologySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207