Human contributions to global soundscapes are less predictable than the acoustic rhythms of wildlife
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across the world, human (anthropophonic) sounds add to sounds of biological (biophonic) and geophysical (geophonic) origin, with human contributions including both speech and technophony (sounds of technological devices). To characterize society's contribution to the global soundscapes, we used passive acoustic recorders at 139 sites across 6 continents, sampling both urban green spaces and nearby pristine sites continuously for 3 years in a paired design. Recordings were characterized by bird species richness and by 14 complementary acoustic indices. By relating each index to seasonal, diurnal, climatic and anthropogenic factors, we show here that latitude, time of day and day of year each predict a substantial proportion of variation in key metrics of biophony-whereas anthropophony (speech and traffic) show less predictable patterns. Compared to pristine sites, the soundscape of urban green spaces is more dominated by technophony and less diverse in terms of acoustic energy across frequencies and time steps, with less instances of quiet. We conclude that the global soundscape is formed from a highly predictable rhythm in biophony, with added noise from geophony and anthropophony. At urban sites, animals experience an increasingly noisy background of sound, which poses challenges to efficient 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 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".