MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409384153 · doi:10.5597/lajam00346

The potential of passive acoustic monitoring for the study of ecological interactions among freshwater Amazonian dolphins and fishes

2025· article· en· W4409384153 on OpenAlexaff
Rodney A. Rountree, Eric Angel Ramos, Francis Juanes

Bibliographic record

VenueLatin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmazonianEcologyGeographyFisheryEnvironmental scienceBiologyAmazon rainforest

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The acoustic behavior of Amazonian aquatic fauna and the importance of its soundscape are poorly understood. Sounds produced by wild river dolphins (Amazon River dolphin, Inia geoffrensis, and tucuxi, Sotalia fluviatilis) and those of unidentified fishes were recorded from a drifting boat on six different days (8.5 h duration) in July 2012, in the Pacaya-Samiria National Reserve of Peru. Unidentified sounds of fishes were dominated by four broad types: pulsed stridulation, long stridulation, long pulse, and short pulse. Dominant sounds produced by dolphins included echolocation click trains, burst-pulses, whistles, and bubble bursts. Soniferous activity was quantified as total sound duration per 10 s of recording and compared between dolphins and fishes for each sound type and all types combined. Soniferous activity was highly variable among days, with echolocation click trains (7.7 s min-1) and pulsed stridulation (0.33 s min-1) being the dominant components. Soniferous activity of the dolphins and fishes was correlated (Spearman r = 0.49, P < 0.001). However, whether the correlation resulted from predator-prey interactions or other spatial factors could not be determined. Although preliminary in nature, this study is the first examination of the soniferous activity of both river dolphins and fishes in the Amazon and suggests passive acoustic monitoring has the potential to provide unique insight into ecological interactions in the system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLatin American Journal of Aquatic MammalsSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207