Characterisation of the ringed seal ( <i>Pusa hispida</i> ) acoustic repertoire during spring in the Western Canadian Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the acoustic repertoire of a species is crucial for comprehending its ecology and can also provide a valuable tool in the analysis of passive acoustic monitoring data. Despite being the most abundant seal species in the Arctic, the call repertoire of ringed seals (Pusa hispida) remains poorly studied. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive and quantitative description of the calls produced by ringed seals. Data collection occurred in May 2022 near Ulukhaktok in the Western Canadian Arctic. Acoustic recorders were deployed in cracks in the sea ice that were regularly used by ringed seals as haul-out areas. All calls were counted and classified into one of three categories: yelps, barks and growls. High-quality calls were further analysed with ten acoustic parameters calculated for each signal. Cluster and classification and regression tree (CART) analyses were used to assess if the visual classification of calls was supported by the acoustic parameters calculated. The cluster and CART analyses affirmed the presence of all three distinct call types in the ringed seal acoustic repertoire. Classification of unseen calls using the CART model demonstrated an accuracy of 98%. The findings presented here serve as foundational information on the acoustic repertoire of ringed seals.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".