Humpback whale (<i>Megaptera novaeangliae</i>) social calls in southern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Humpback whale ( Megaptera novaeangliae) nonsong vocalizations, or social calls, are much more poorly understood than humpback song. We examined humpback whale social calls from a foraging ground in southern British Columbia (BC) and developed a catalog for humpback social calls in BC. We tagged four humpback whales on the eastern edge of Swiftsure Bank, BC, in early September 2020, with a passive acoustic and movement tag. We manually classified 32 call types in our data set based on comparisons with published classifications of humpback social calls. Many of the calls identified in our data set had similar characteristics to calls from other locations. We also used two statistical classification methods, a cluster analysis and a random forest. The cluster analysis grouped 20 of these call types into four categories, and the random forest classifier was able to accurately classify all 20 call types 87.6% of the time. This study fills a geographical gap of humpback whale social calls on foraging grounds and is a first step towards categorizing the social calls of humpback whales in BC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".