The content of reindeer male vocalisations: acoustic cues to age and size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some acoustic parameters of animal vocalisations have been shown to reliably indicate male quality and play a role in mate and rival assessment. Reindeer possess a peculiar vocal tract anatomy involving a laryngeal air sac which probably acts as an additional filter, making it a candidate species for novel investigations in the field of bioacoustics. We investigated whether some acoustic parameters of male rutting vocalisations were good indicators of age and body weight (used as an index for body size). We did this by performing acoustic analyses using recordings collected from a semi-domesticated reindeer population in northern Finland. We found the age of subadult males (aged 2.5–4.5 years) to be negatively correlated with formant F3 and formant spacing, suggesting that their vocalisations convey information on the caller’s age. Individual formant frequencies were not affected by male body weight, but formant spacing was lower in heavier males. Despite the presence of the laryngeal air sac, formant spacing seems to be an acoustic parameter influencing mate and rival assessment in reindeer as it gives an honest indication of male body size. We discuss the importance of reliable acoustic cues to quality indices in sexual selection contexts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".