Cetaceans are the next frontier for vocal rhythm research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While rhythm can facilitate and enhance many aspects of behavior, its evolutionary trajectory in vocal communication systems remains enigmatic. We can trace evolutionary processes by investigating rhythmic abilities in different species, but research to date has largely focused on songbirds and primates. We present evidence that cetaceans-whales, dolphins, and porpoises-are a missing piece of the puzzle for understanding why rhythm evolved in vocal communication systems. Cetaceans not only produce rhythmic vocalizations but also exhibit behaviors known or thought to play a role in the evolution of different features of rhythm. These behaviors include vocal learning abilities, advanced breathing control, sexually selected vocal displays, prolonged mother-infant bonds, and behavioral synchronization. The untapped comparative potential of cetaceans is further enhanced by high interspecific diversity, which generates natural ranges of vocal and social complexity for investigating various evolutionary hypotheses. We show that rhythm (particularly isochronous rhythm, when sounds are equally spaced in time) is prevalent in cetacean vocalizations but is used in different contexts by baleen and toothed whales. We also highlight key questions and research areas that will enhance understanding of vocal rhythms across taxa. By coupling an infraorder-level taxonomic assessment of vocal rhythm production with comparisons to other species, we illustrate how broadly comparative research can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the prevalence, evolution, and possible functions of rhythm in animal communication.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".