Sex differences in the acoustic structure of terrestrial alarm calls in vervet monkeys (<i>Chlorocebus pygerythrus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The alarm calls of vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus) have been the subject of considerable focus by researchers, owing primarily to the purported referential qualities of different alarm call types. With this focus on reference, acoustic variation among calls elicited by the same range of predators has typically been overlooked. Specifically, at least one type of alarm call-the terrestrial alarm-was described over 50 years ago as being acoustically distinct between males and females-a description that has largely eluded more systematic scrutiny. Here, we provide a quantitative acoustic analysis and comparison of terrestrial alarm calls produced by adult male and female vervet monkeys. We use a random forest model to determine which acoustic variables best distinguish between the calls of males and females, and use an unsupervised clustering technique to objectively determine whether alarms produced by each sex fall into discrete types. We found that the calls of males and females differed most in frequency-based parameters, with male alarms containing more energy at lower frequencies relative to females. Calls produced by males were also of longer duration, and consisted of longer individual call elements relative to female calls. While calls generally fell into clusters associated with either male or female alarms, we found that some fell into atypical clusters given the caller's sex, and that the clusters themselves showed evidence of intergradation. We discuss these results in terms of potential differences in the function of, and motivation for, calling by males and females. We emphasize the need for a more holistic approach to the classification of vocal signals that considers contextual, functional, and structural variation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".